Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

The Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PETITION (BRITISH MUSEUM)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have annually to submit to this House, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament, for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet."—(King's Recommendation signified.)
Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Secondary Schools, Macclesfield

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Education if he will reconsider the position regarding secondary school accommodation in Macclesfield,

with a view to allotting a proportion of vacancies to rural school children of secondary school age.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): No, Sir. Reorganisation of the rural schools in the Macclesfield area must wait until additional accommodation, now being provided in prefabricated huts, is ready.

Air-Commodore Harvey: How can the right hon. Gentleman really say that, when children in villages like Gawsworth do not get a look into the secondary schools in the borough? Why cannot a larger proportion of the places go to children from the villages? Is he aware that there is great concern and indignation on that point?

Mr. Tomlinson: The reason is that, until the pre-fabricated huts are ready, it will not be possible to deal with the problem in the way that has been suggested. I would point out that, for over 20 years, when there were facilities available, reorganisation has been advocated, but nothing has been done.

School Managers and Governors (Allowances)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Education whether school managers and school governors who are not members of a local authority are entitled to allowances for expenses and loss of working time.

Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that it is not contemplated that the prescription to be made by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, under Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1948, should cover the case of such members of the managing and governing bodies of schools.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many working men and women who serve on these committees, which very often meet during the daytime, thereby precluding them from attending unless they are given this kind compensation?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to make regulations under this Act. If my hon. Friend makes a submission to me, I will make it known to my right hon. Friend and see what can be done.

Mr. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend regard this as a submission, or would he like me to get in touch with him again?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would like my hon. Friend to get in touch with me again.

School Meals (Cost)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Education what is the average cost per meal per child of the school meals service.

Mr. Tomlinson: In 1947–48, for England and Wales, the average cost of dinners served to children and staff was 11.8 pence per meal. The net cost, after deducting payments received from parents and others, was 7.6 pence. These figures include the cost of local administration, but not the amortisation of capital expenditure or the supply and replacement of equipment.

Mr. Symonds: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to give any estimate how soon this meals service will become free, as he intends?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I cannot.

Central Advisory Council (Report)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education what notice he has taken of the report, "Out of School," asked for as a matter of urgency on 13th June, 1947, and submitted to him in 1948 by the Central Advisory Council for Education; how many of the 14 recommendations he accepts; and what action he has taken to carry them out.

Mr. Tomlinson: Copies of the report have been sent to all local education authorities. I propose to draw attention to certain of its recommendations in a document which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and I are shortly to send to the leaders of local government in England and Wales following the recent conference on juvenile delinquency. Because of the other existing heavy demands on the manpower and resources of local education authorities, I cannot press on them those of the recommendations which involve the establishment of a new administrative machinery, and the appointment of special sub-committees and additional specialised staff.

Mr. Lindsay: While I am glad to hear that, will my right hon. Friend say whether clubs dealing with children under the compulsory school age can receive subsidies from his Department?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would like that question put upon the Paper. At the moment, I do not know the conditions under which they could be granted.

Grammar Schools (Entrance Examination)

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education whether his regulations permit a parent, residing in an area covered by a comprehensive school to allow his son to sit for the examination to a local grammar school.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have made no regulations in this matter, which is primarily one for the local education authority.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answer given to a parent was, "It will not be necessary for your child to take the examination"; that this means that a child of poor parents is prevented from getting the opportunity of going to a university while a child attending an independent school has no such handicap put in his way; and that this is not equality of opportunity for the children of this country?

Mr. Tomlinson: No question of the opportunity of going to a university arises at this stage. The education authorities have indicated that, in certain circumstances, and in relation to certain individuals, they are prepared to make exceptions.

Mr. Lindsay: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that if the child does not have the opportunity of going to a grammar school, and does not take a foreign language until the age of 16, its chances of getting to a university are very small indeed? This is a very serious question.

Emergency-Trained Teachers

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Education how many teachers trained under the emergency training scheme have since resigned and how many have not been found satisfactory during the probationary period, respectively.

Mr. Tomlinson: I regret that the answer to the first part of the Question


is not available. Of the emergency-trained teachers who have completed their period of two years' probationary service in the schools, only one has so far failed to do so satisfactorily.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the arrangements for supervising the emergency training of teachers during the probationary period, and will he say what arrangements are in existence as there is some apprehension among local authorities?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is for the local authorities themselves to make arrangements, so that any misapprehension they may have is due to their own inability to meet the requirements.

U.N.E.S.C.O. (Lectures)

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education whether his Department is still sponsoring lectures on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; how many have been given; how are the lecturers selected; and what is the maximum fee paid to an individual lecturer.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir; 32 such lectures were given in 1948. Lecturers are selected either from a small professional panel, all of whom have visited U.N.E.S.C.O's. headquarters, or from members of the national co-operating bodies who have volunteered to speak. The maximum fee paid to a professional lecturer by my Department is five guineas; volunteer lecturers receive no such fee.

Mr. Lindsay: I am very glad to hear that because I have heard rumours of £30 being paid for lectures. Would not my right hon. Friend agree that great movements do not start by the State paying lecturers, however good the movement is—whether it is Western Union, U.N.O. or U.N.E.S.C.O.—that it is not necessary to pay the expenses, that we should let people in the audience or the enthusiasts pay, and allow the movement to grow on its own?

Mr. Tomlinson: In the main, I agree with what my hon. Friend says. We are relying more and more on volunteers for this work.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS ENFORCEMENT (EIRE)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of men against whom maintenance orders for the support of their wives and children have been made by magistrates and justices of the peace in this country have left this country for Eire and are evading payment of orders for the support of their wives and children owing to the fact that the Eire courts have no jurisdiction to enforce a maintenance order made in the courts of England and Wales; and whether he will endeavour to come to some agreement with Eire to enforce orders made in this country against defaulting husbands.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I have no reason to think that large numbers of men are evading maintenance orders by leaving the United Kingdom for Eire. I understand that, when such cases do occur, the Orders cannot be enforced in Eire. The provisions of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, could have been applied to such cases, if legislation adopting the Act had been passed in Eire, but this has never been done. I will consider with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether it would be worth while to ask the Government of Eire if they would like to make an agreement for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders in their country and in ours.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the experience in a large number of cases is that such husbands do go to Eire and that the wives cannot get their maintenance allowances; and, further, in view of the fact that there is shortly to be a change in the Constitution of Eire, will he take immediate steps to see if a reciprocal arrangement can be made so that men of that nature will not avoid their obligations?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have said that, of course, orders cannot be enforced in Eire—there is no legislation—but, in fact, the Eire police have been helping in persuading the husbands to do their duty. although they do not always succeed. I have also said that I will consider with


my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether a mutual agreement can be made with the Eire Government.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that a man in this position does not have to go to Eire and that if he leaves his job and gets another in an Admiralty yard he is free? Will the Minister take that up with the Home Secretary?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the Minister consult with the Attorney-General about introducing an Amendment into the Maintenance Bill at present before Parliament in order to cover this particular question?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There is nothing we can do to make legislation effective in Eire.

TRANSJORDAN (BRITISH FORCE)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations which of the Dominions were notified of our intention to land a task force at Aqaba; and how many were invited to participate.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom informed other Commonwealth Governments of their decision to send a force to Aqaba, and told them that this was being done in response to a request from the Transjordan Government, made under the terms of our treaty with them. As other Commonwealth Governments are not parties to this treaty, no question of inviting them to participate arose.

Dr. Segal: Since we were glad of the support of all the older Dominions in this area during the war, ought we not to take heed of their advice in this matter; and does my hon. Friend realise that any isolated military action of our own in this area now is not likely either to protect this puppet State of Transjordan or intimidate anyone else?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course, if the Commonwealth Governments give us advice, we shall very gladly listen to them. We have informed them, but have received no advice from them. I am sure that the hon. Member would desire, as would everybody else, that an

ally should be protected against aggression if it occurs under the terms of the treaty.

Earl Winterton: Is not the point perfectly clear that all we have to do is to carry out our treaty obligations, and will the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly plain that we intend to carry them out whatever may be the opposition of those who have racial affiliations with Israel?

Mr. Noel-Baker: These are really questions for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I think it is quite plain that His Majesty's Government desire and intend to carry out their treaty obligations.

Mr. John Lewis: On a point of Order. An hon. Member just raised a question in this House regarding what he thought was in the best interests of the House and a matter which should be brought to its notice. Was the noble Lord in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in referring to the fact that the purpose for which my hon. Friend put his question was to further racial associations with another country?

Earl Winterton: I said nothing of the sort. What I said was, will the right hon. Gentleman carry out our treaty obligations quite irrespective of any opposition from those who had racial affiliations with Israel? I persist in it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think a point of Order arises here.

Captain Crookshank: Can the Minister make any statement on the present situation there in view of the rather alarming statements in some newspapers today?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I had better not do that; I think that is a matter which should be left to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Captain Crookshank: Will a statement be made shortly?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have no notice of it

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Further to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have ruled that, in my view, no point of Order arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Motor Vehicles (Exports)

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the difficulties experienced by motor manufacturers in selling to countries which discriminate against British vehicles by means of currency restrictions, he will press for the inclusion of cars, trucks, buses and other motor vehicles in new or renewed trade agreements with those countries.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I shall continue to arrange that the position of motor manufacturers in relation to exports are fully borne in mind in the course of bilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the increasing redundancy in the motor industry?

Mr. Wilson: We have to judge every trade agreement on the terms offered on both sides, but we always stress the desirability of relaxing import restrictions on the export of British motor cars and other manufactures.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman alive to the seriousness of this matter in Birmingham and Coventry, and will he do everything he possibly can to meet the practical suggestion of the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman)?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but in every one of these trade discussions we do what we can to open up the market for British cars.

Anglo-Canadian Trade

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of our exports of machinery to Canada last year; and what was the comparable figure for 1937.

Mr. H. Wilson: The value of our exports of machinery to Canada in 1948 was just over £5,100,000 compared with just over £1,400,000 in 1937.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last year we sent abroad about £250 million worth of machinery altogether, and that the amount going to the Canadian market was disappointingly small?

Mr. Wilson: It was because we felt that the amount could be increased, given co-operation both from our engineering industry and from the Canadian purchasers, that we sent the Gilpin Mission to Canada, and that Mission has just reported.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many Canadian centres do the British Trade Commissioners maintain offices; and what is the total staff employed other than clerical staff.

Mr. H. Wilson: There are United Kingdom Trade Commissioners in five centres in Canada, namely Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg, and Imperial Trade Correspondents at St. John's (New Brunswick) and Halifax (Nova Scotia). There is also an Imperial Trade Correspondent at St. John's (Newfoundland). The total staff other than clerical is 25.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: With a view to stimulating exports still further in the Canadian market, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the series of offices into other centres?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, if that becomes necessary. This matter is under close review at the present moment.

Mr. Cobb: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent British exports to Canada are obstructed by Canadian patent law.

Mr. H. Wilson: The term of Canadian patents is generally longer than in this country, and does not depend upon the payment of renewal fees. Apart from these factors, United Kingdom exports to Canada are not, so far as I am aware, at present unduly restricted by Canadian patent law, which operates, like the patent laws of other countries, to confer upon patentees the right to prevent the use by unauthorised persons of the patented inventions within the territory covered by the patents.

Mr. Cobb: Does not Canadian patent law prohibit the import and sale of articles whioh are patented and manufactured in Canada; does not this cover a very wide range of goods; and would not discussions with the Canadian Government perhaps enable us to increase our exports to Canada over this range?

Mr. Wilson: Our information is that the difficulty which I think my hon. Friend has in mind relates to cartel arrangements and not to patents, but if my hon. Friend will let me have any details of what precisely he has in mind I shall be glad to go into it with the Canadian authorities.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature and extent of the organised effort in process to stimulate the interest of British manufacturers in the International Trade Fair to be held at Toronto from 30th May to 10th June this year; and what special facilities will be made available to encourage the largest possible number of exhibits of articles needful in the Canadian market being shown at the Fair.

Mr. H. Wilson: My officials have been working in close and continuous contact with the Canadian Government Exhibition Commission in Ottawa and Canadian officials in London, for the last 12 months to bring home to United Kingdom manufacturers the importance of the Canadian International Trade Fair. They have taken every opportunity to urge United Kingdom participation in the Fair, in view of the paramount importance we attach to the Canadian market.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the President of the Board of Trade in contact with the Chambers of Commerce and the various trade organisations of this country with the object of encouraging attendance and the presentation of our exports?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, with Chambers of Commerce and also with trade associations and development councils.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the report of the recent United Kingdom Engineering Mission to Canada of British industrialists headed by Mr. Harry Gilpin; and what positive action is contemplated in view of the recommendations by Mr. Gilpin for the expansion of Anglo-Canadian trade.

Mr. H. Wilson: I have considered the report of the United Kingdom Engineering Mission with great care. We are greatly indebted to Sir Harry Gilpin and his colleagues for their most valuable

report, which I have publicly commended to the attention of the whole engineering industry. We are doing everything we can to encourage the industry to apply, at once, its positive recommendations.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the President contemplate encouraging similar missions to other parts of the Commonwealth in the near future?

Mr. Wilson: I should require notice of that question, but we have already encouraged the sending of similar missions to Canada in different industries.

Woollen Industry

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in setting up a development council for the woollen industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: As I mentioned to the House on the 14th September, during the Adjournment Debate on the Pottery Industry Development Council Order, Sir Richard Hopkins, the Chairman of the Wool Working Party, has been discussing this matter, at my request, with both sides of the industry. These discussions have recently been resumed and until I have received and considered his report, I would prefer not to make any further comment.

Mr. Erroll: May I ask the Minister what progress the Committee on industrial productivity, as distinct from the Anglo-American productivity council, is making and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a different question.

British Industries Fair (Overseas Publicity)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now satisfied that complete information relating to the British Industries Fair has been made available at His Majesty's embassies, legations and consulates in all foreign countries and throughout the British Commonwealth.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir, I am fully satisfied.

Sir P. Hannon: I am delighted that the President of the Board of Trade has said that, but does he realise the importance of the British Industries Fair to the expansion of our export trade; and is he really satisfied that every possible means of publicity has been employed all over the world to call attention to the Fair?

Mr. Wilson: Detailed information of this Fair was circulated to all Government posts overseas in September, 1948, and further material has been continuously sent out since then, including 10,000 copies of the advance edition of the catalogues, both for the London and Birmingham sections of the Trade Fair.

Waste Paper Collection

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the average monthly collection of waste paper for 1943 and 1948, respectively.

Mr. H. Wilson: The average monthly collections of waste paper for 1943 and 1948 were 58,300 and 62,800 tons, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the very satisfactory figure for 1948.reflects the results of the devoted efforts of the Central Office of Information?

Major Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the inflated figures for the year 1948 are due to extra copies of the Conservative Party's Industrial Charter?

Mr. Wilson: Salvage collection is not analysed in that way.

Footwear (Prices)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the increased profits of firms retailing boots and shoes, he will take steps to reduce retail prices.

Mr. H. Wilson: Steps have already been taken. Orders reducing both wholesalers' and retailers' margins for footwear were made on 10th February (S.I. 1949 Nos. 205 and 206). The reduced margins came into operation on Monday, 28th February.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. Friend say when these reduced profit margins will be reflected in lower shop

prices? Has not the time arrived when the abolition of maximum prices would lead to even greater reductions to the advantage of family budgets?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. If it required the reduction of maximum prices to get a fall of 1s. 7d. in the pound in retailers' margins, I am certainly not satisfied that to take away price control altogether would reduce the price.

Mr. Solley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase in profits of boot companies over the last 12 months, if distributed so as to bring down the cost of boots and shoes, would bring a reduction in price of 5s. per pair?

Mr. Wilson: We have to reckon on the fact that it is not only the big companies who are involved in relation to retailing. Measures taken with these price control orders will make a big difference both to prices and profits.

Wood Pulp

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what profit the Government have made during the past 12 months over the purchase and resale of wood pulp for paper, including newsprint.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Max Aitken) on 10th February.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give these facts to the House? If he is making a profit. will he undertake to apply that profit to the reduction of the price of newsprint in the future?

Mr. Wilson: Because, as I told the hon. Member for Holborn, the accounts for 1947–48 are in course of preparation, they will be published very shortly and will be fully available to the House.

Wire Recorders (Overseas Market)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will encourage manufacturers of the latest type of British wire recorders to demonstrate these at foreign trade fairs in 1949, in view of the value of these instruments in education.

Mr. H. Wilson: The decision as to the best method of bringing their products to the notice of potential buyers overseas must necessarily rest with manufacturers, but it is part of my Department's functions to give advice to them on request on the relative merits of the various fairs in relation to a particular product, and generally on the best means of selling their goods abroad.

Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great difficulty that has been experienced, particularly in Scandinavia, where there should be a ready market for these devices, in obtaining specimens which could be exhibited, especially for the use of educational departments?

Mr. Wilson: If my hon. Friend will let me have the particulars I will look into them.

Factory, Blackpool

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now announce the plans for the use of the Squires Gate factory at Blackpool.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am afraid I am still not in a position to say what will be the ultimate use of the main factory buildings. A portion of the factory covering some 200,000 sq. ft. has, however, been allocated to the Ministry of Supply for vehicle repair work.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are nearly 4,000 people out of work in this area and that it has taken his Department nearly two years to make up its mind on the problem?

Mr. Wilson: I am aware of nothing of the kind. What I am aware of is the fact that the local authority were unwilling to consider the proposals put before them for finding re-employment for this area some two years ago, and secondly, I am aware of the fact that the Board of Trade have no powers to direct private industry into Blackpool. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to suggest that we should take those powers.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of what is an economic rent for this factory lies within the power of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Wilson: That has not been the difficulty throughout these very difficult two years.

Hosiery Yarns (Export)

Mr. Spence: asked the President of the Board of Trade the weight and value of hosiery yarns exported during 1948.

Mr. H. Wilson: I regret that this information is not available as hosiery yarns are not distinguished separately in the trade returns.

Mr. Spence: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the export of hosiery yarns, which has been considerable, has been made without prejudice to the expansion and development of the hosiery trade in this country?

Mr. Wilson: We have at all times tried to see that there were sufficient yarns available for the hosiery trade and at the same time to deliver all exports, but if the hon. Gentleman has a view, or any particular suggestion, that we have exported too much, perhaps he would let us have his information.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Opencast Mining

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement in any convenient statistical form showing the extent to which motor transport is used for the haulage of opencast coal.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Precise information is not available, but it is estimated that roughly 13¼ million tons of opencast coal were moved by road during 1948, by some 1,400 tipping vehicles, travelling an average distance per trip of 12½ miles and carrying a load of about 5½ tons each time.

Mr. Erroll: Do not these figures show the growing value of road transport for moving heavy freight of this character?

Mr. Gaitskell: They show the necessity for road transport in moving opencast coal.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what special precautions he is taking to prevent lorry and other accidents to the children living in the


small residential area now being entirely surrounded by the Winstanley Hall Opencast No. 3A site.

Mr. Gaitskell: The residential area near Winstanley No. 3A site lies to one side of Winstanley Park and is not entirely surrounded by the site. The traffic past the houses from opencast coal workings in the area is now less than it was and there has been no suggestion from the traffic authorities that special precautions are required.

Mr. Erroll: Is not the Minister taking any special precautions in regard to other accidents which may befall children through the proximity of this site, such as falling into the workings?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is a different question of which I should like to have notice.

Mr. Tom Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday I received a letter from the surveyor of this township indicating that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) does not know the site and has never been to the site; and that this is a political stunt being tried out by him which amounts to nothing less than damn cheek and impudence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that epithet. That is not Parliamentary language.

Mr. Brown: In deference to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I withdraw the word "damn."

Mr. Erroll: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Since when has it been cheek and impudence for a—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! The hon. Member has withdrawn, and the matter is closed.

Domestic Supplies (Registration)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what limitations there are on the complete freedom of choice of a coal consumer to choose his own coal merchant; and whether Fuel Overseers have been or will be instructed to issue licences, as from 1st May, to coal merchants who did not previously deliver coal in the area concerned, but who are now prepared to supply consumers who wish them so to do.

Mr. Gaitskell: There are no restrictions on the freedom of consumers to change their coal merchants between the 7th–31st March, 1949, except that the merchant chosen must be one already licensed to trade in the district, and that he must be willing to accept the new customer. Outside that period transfers are within the discretion of local fuel overseers and there is a right of appeal to the regional coal officer either by the consumer or by the merchant.
With regard to the second part of the Question, local fuel overseers have authority to register new merchants in any district where there is consumer need for additional distributive facilities. For administrative reasons, however, no new merchants are being licensed during March and April while applications from consumers to change their merchants are being dealt with. Local fuel overseers have already been instructed to resume the normal procedure as from 1st May, 1949.

Mr. Sharp: Can the Minister explain the reason for this limitation in the freedom of choice of the consumer to change his coal merchant?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not sure to what my hon. Friend is referring. If he means that they cannot change to a merchant who is not licensed, then I must tell him that some time ago arrangements were made with the distribution trade to license new merchants only where there is an essential need so long as the shortage of coal continues, which is only fair to the existing merchants.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL SUPPLIES

American Visitors

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power under what conditions petrol is allocated to Americans visiting this country.

Mr. Gaitskell: American and other overseas visitors who bring a private car or motor cycle with them or who buy a new one here for subsequent export are granted an allowance to cover the journey by direct route from the port of entry to their furthest destination in the United Kingdom and thence to their port of departure. In addition they receive a special allowance for touring which varies with the length of stay. For


example, a visitor who stays one month receives sufficient petrol for 1,000 miles of touring. Visitors who wish to use a car for business journeys in this country, can obtain a separate allowance for this purpose.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that visitors from America and other countries often want to borrow their friends' cars here, which are laid up, but are told that they must either buy a car or bring one over with them, as they cannot get an allowance of petrol to use in their friends' cars?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. I have frequently explained to the House why it is very difficult to grant an allowance for use in cars belonging to British persons. Obviously in any such proposal there are very grave dangers of abuse, but we are going into the matter again to see if there is any possibility of development on those lines.

Captain Crookshank: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the great bulk of the American tourists coming to this country are people of very moderate means, and that some advantage to them in the way of borrowing cars would be very helpful in bringing them to this country?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am quite aware of that, but I must also be careful to see that as a result we do not lose dollars on balance.

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every dollar's worth of petrol given to an American is likely to be recouped tenfold by the amount of dollars spent while he is using that dollar's worth of petrol?

Disabled Persons

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give further and more favourable consideration to an application for additional supply of petrol made by Mr. J. H. Bushen of Hounslow, in view of the man's disability and the wide area he has to cover in connection with his normal business.

Mr. Gaitskell: This case has been examined again, but I can find no reason for increasing the allowance above the present level.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man looks like having to give up his work because he cannot take the risk of travelling in crowded buses and trains on account of his disability, and will he take a more sympathetic view of the case which, in my opinion, deserves much more favourable consideration?

Mr. Gaitskell: This man is getting the maximum appropriate to his scale plus the maximum compassionate allowance, and he is thus getting as much as any other person in a similar position. I cannot make an exception in individual cases.

Mr. Williams: Have any other people with whom his case has been compared the same physical disabilities as those of my constituent?

Mr. Gaitskell: Similar physical disabilities.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES (PRIORITY)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will amend the instructions he has given to the Electricity Board so that houses and villages which have been waiting for several years for electricity and which have no gas, shall be given a priority equal to that given to new houses for connection to the public mains.

Mr. Gaitskell: Electricity Boards have been asked to give supplies to new houses, farms and farm cottages and to existing houses where the present means of heating or cooking are worn out, where the absence of a supply is a cause of serious hardship or where a supply is essential for health reasons. Owing to the shortage of materials and labour I regret that I cannot at the moment extend this list of priority classes.

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask the Minister if he has read and, if he has not, if he will now read and study the leading article about himself in the "Financial Times" this morning?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Italian (Application)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department


through what channels application should be made to him for permission for permanent residence in this country on behalf of Mr. Emilio Rossi, restaurant proprietor, of Kirkconnel, Dumfriesshire, who lived in Kirkconnel from 1909 until internment in 1940 and subsequent repatriation to Italy on medical advice and now wishes to return to his home and business.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The hon. Member has written to the Home Office on several occasions about this case, and I know of no channel of communication more appropriate than a direct approach. I have considered the applications made on behalf of Mr. Rossi, but I regret that I cannot agree that Mr. Rossi, who in 1943 on medical grounds voluntarily returned to his country of origin which was then at war with this country, should come back to reside in this country.

Mr. Macpherson: Is it quite fair to describe as a voluntary decision one taken by a man who was ill at the time, who did not expect to recover, whose brothers live in this country and whose children are here?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman should state the case fully or not at all. This man arranged for his wife to go to Italy on two occasions when she was expecting a child so that the children could be born on Italian soil. There is other evidence that this man has always regarded himself as primarily an Italian, and I do not think that, inasmuch as he decided to go to Italy at a time when he might have imagined that Italy was on the winning side in the war, I should now re-admit him to this country.

Sydney Stanley

Mr. Nally: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a reply from the Polish authorities in the matter of the deportation order made against Sydney Stanley; and whether, pending the receipt of such reply, he will now make a formal request to the Government of Israel to consider the granting of an entry permit to Stanley in accordance with the application already made to that Government by him.

Mr. Ede: I hope that a reply from the Polish Government will not be long delayed, but I am unable to say when it may be expected. As I explained to the House on 17th February, Mr. Sydney Stanley, according to my information, is a Pole, and I think it right to deal with him on this basis before I consider whether an approach should be made to any other Government.

Mr. Nally: Whilst appreciating my right hon. Friend's difficulties in this matter, will he bear in mind, in considering it, that although there may be substantial doubt whether or not Mr. Stanley is a Pole, there is no doubt whatsoever about his right to enter the territory under the control of the present Government of Israel? Will he, in these circumstances, bear in mind that so long as Mr. Stanley goes, where he goes we cannot care less about?

Mr. Ede: I cannot accept all the premises on which my hon. Friend's deductions were drawn at the end of his question.

Sir T. Moore: Is this suggestion intended to be a punishment to Israel for breaking the standstill agreement?

Entry Permits

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many aliens have been permitted to enter this country, with a view to permanent residence therein, since June, 1945; how many of these were displaced persons; and what are the conditions under which such entry of aliens is now permitted.

Mr. Ede: From 1945 to 31st January, 1949, just over 6,000 distressed relatives of persons resident here, refugees from certain European countries or alien husbands of women of British birth and parentage, have been allowed to come to this country for permanent residence. In addition, 76,674 European volunteer workers have been brought to this country and, subject to compliance with the conditions on which they were recruited, will be permitted to remain here. Admission for permanent residence is confined to the classes that I have mentioned. The figures given do not include former members of the Polish and German forces, 156,942 of whom have been allowed to remain in this country.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether every care is taken to see that members of these various classes he has enumerated are in every way desirable residents for this country before they are admitted, and is care taken specially to exclude Communists and near-Communists?

Mr. Ede: Every effort is made to ensure that these people will be suitable residents in this country, and adequate steps are taken to get the advice of persons concerned with security to that end. But I cannot undertake to have an inquiry made into the political beliefs of every applicant for admission.

Earl Winterton: In view of the very fine record of this country in regard to refugees, under four successive Governments of different political complexions, will the right hon. Gentleman make use of these figures by sending them to our representatives at U.N.O., because the world ought to know what we have done for political refugees?

Mr. Ede: I hope that one of the results of this Question will be that greater knowledge will prevail as to what we have done during the very difficult period through which we have been passing.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: When the right hon. Gentleman conveys that information to U.N.O., will he also bring out the fact that a great number of these aliens have considerably contributed to the wealth of this country, and that on the whole their presence here has been very useful?

METROPOLITAN POLICE RATE

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has approved the increase of 5¼d. in the Metropolitan police rate; how much the additional precept will produce; and for what purposes the increase is required.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. The increase on police account is 5d., producing £1,900,000. This is needed to meet the higher cost of a larger force, necessary arrears of building work, provision of a new type of uniform, and the restoration of balances which are being depleted during the current year to the extent of

a 2d. rate. The ¼d. is in respect of probation and is raised only in the Metropolitan boroughs, producing about £50,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied that it is necessary to impose a 2d. rate merely for the sake of replenishing various balances? As the local authorities in London are in a position much inferior to county boroughs generally, will he consider some form of consultation with the local authorities prior to fixing the Metropolitan police rate?

Mr. Ede: I am convinced that the balances must be restored. I expected at the commencement of the financial year that the balances would fall by £500,000, but as a matter of fact, owing to increased expenditure they fell by £800,000. It is necessary to have an adequate working balance. With regard to the last part of the question, as I am responsible for the Metropolitan Police to this House, I cannot agree to consult anyone before I submit the Estimates to the House which clearly has the first-right to know about them. I have promised a deputation of representatives of the Metropolitan boroughs and of the local authorities in the outer ring of the Metropolitan police district, after the Estimates are submitted, that I shall be prepared to meet them to explain any items about which they may wish to have information.

Captain Crookshank: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how big are the balances and what is the need for having them so very high?

Mr. Ede: The reason for having them very high is the fact that £3 million of the rates comes in only during the months of February and March and in consequence it is necessary to have a balance to enable me to carry on during the period. By the end of the year the balance in hand will be £1,300,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, although there is a waiting list of 19,000 people, the Cardiff City housing authority plan for the construction of


1,000 houses only during the current year; and whether he will take steps to have this target increased.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Yes, Sir. Further proposals will be considered in relation to progress made with the initial allocation of 1,000 houses to Cardiff City.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will be received with satisfaction in Cardiff, where the supporters of the Opposition have steadily conveyed the idea that my right hon. Friend was preventing the council building as many houses as they would like?

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that this happens in very many parts of the country, but the election figures are an answer to that silly propaganda.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does making the target bigger make it easier or more difficult to hit?

Mr. Bevan: The answer is, as the hon. and learned Member should know and as all Members should know, that the size of the housing programme is limited by the available building materials and labour, and that if we added to the housing programme considerably it would be at the expense of other forms of building, like hospitals and such like places. I should like the Opposition to tell us whether they would rather have fewer hospitals.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the suggestions of the Girdwood Committee and secure a great deal more efficiency in labour and thereby build both houses and hospitals?

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that the Girdwood Committee made no recommendations as to efficiency. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should read the Report again. It is primarily concerned with the price of houses and not the organisation of the building industry. But I accept, as the building industry is almost entirely a private enterprise industry, that there is room for more efficiency.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will read the

Report of the Committee and ascertain from it the valuable advice that is given.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is only entitled to ask a question.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Girdwood Committee's Report with the object of deriving the maximum possible information from the very valuable statistics with which they were concerned, and—

Mr. Jeger: On a point of Order. What has this to do with Cardiff City Housing?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to secure that the industry is given conditions under which private enterprise can most efficiently function?

Mr. Bevan: The industry has been provided with all the contracts it is able to carry out, and there is a Committee now appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to go into the organisation and efficiency of the building industry, which was not one of the terms of reference of the Girdwood Committee. And so the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is as inaccurate as usual.

DEFENCE (INFORMATION)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that the information that is to be given by him to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) will also be made available to other Members of the House.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of public interest as well as interest among hon. Members in regard to the secret session between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister—

Sir W. Smithers: And also amongst the Russians.

Mr. Hughes: —and is he further aware that many millions of public money have to be voted by hon. Members of this House on Defence, and are they not just as much entitled to know what it is all about as the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I do not think the hon. Member is acquainted with the practice, which has been an established one over many years, for the Government, at their discretion, to communicate some information to the leaders of other parties who are Members of His Majesty's Privy Council where it would not be in the national interest to give wide circulation to the information.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not time that this practice was discontinued?

COUNCIL FOR WALES (MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that Welsh local authorities who have nominated local government officers for membership of the proposed Council of Wales have now been informed that such officers are ineligible for membership; and whether, in view of the fact that the position was not made clear to these authorities when they were invited to make nominations he will allow them to make alternative nominations.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): When the local authorities who had nominated local government officers were informed that it was intended that the representatives of the Welsh local authorities on the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire should be members of local authorities, they were also given the opportunity of submitting alternative nominations.

Mr. Roberts: What is the position of the nominee who is clerk to a rural district council and also a member of the county council? Would he be eligible for membership of the Council for Wales in the latter capacity?

Mr. Morrison: It is news to me that the clerk of a rural district council is also a member of a county council, though it may be so. Whilst we did not say so explicitly in terms, it was implicit in the document which was issued that when we asked for nominations it was for members of local authorities, and since there was a request as to the authority on which the nominees are serving. This body will deal with matters of public policy, and, with great respect, I do not think it is appropriate that officers of local authorities should serve as full members on bodies which deal with public policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Professional Sport (Negotiating Machinery)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what negotiating machinery exists for the settlement of disputes relating to conditions of employment and rates of remuneration for those employed in professional sport who are subject to the autonomous control of self-constituted and self-appointed bodies.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I have little information about the arrangements for determining terms and conditions of employment in the various forms of professional sport or for dealing with disputes that may arise. I would, however, inform my hon. Friend that I have quite recently received a letter from the Association Football Players' Union seeking my assistance for the establishment of some form of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of professional footballers. The Football Association and the Football League have readily responded to my invitation to meet me for a discussion with the Players' Union, and the meeting will take place on Monday afternoon next.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the British Boxing Board of Control can withdraw the licences of persons engaged in that sport without any appeal to an external authority, thus depriving them of their livelihood? If my right hon. Friend receives representations from any of the boxing organisations, is he prepared to give consideration to the terms and conditions under which people are employed in that particular profession of sport?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. If either party of any of these sports asks for the help of the Ministry of Labour we shall be glad to do anything in our power to help.

Factories Acts (Leaflet)

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Minister of Labour whether, as the Guide to the Factories Act, 1937, has been of great value to trade union and other bodies but is now out of print and has been superseded by the Factories Act, 1948, and many statutory instruments, he will consider publishing a new guide.

Mr. Isaacs: A guide of the kind suggested already exists in the prescribed abstract, Factory Form No. 1, which broadly summarises the main operative provisions of the 1937 Act, as amended by the 1948 Act. I am having this abstract printed in leaflet form.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that the 1937 guide has been of inestimable value to works councils and trade union bodies, and if the new extract to which he refers will give the precise and concise information necessary it will be received with great satisfaction all over the country?

Mr. Isaacs: We did not want to go to the length of reprinting the old abstract, and if, when my hon. Friend sees the extract, he does not think it covers the entire field, perhaps he will have a word with me to see what can be done.

Dispute, Slough

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Messrs. Langley Alloys, Limited, of Slough, have infringed trade union agreements and procedure and have thus provoked a strike of 250 workers; and, as this firm has been executing orders of good quality products for buyers in Holland, Belgium and Switzerland, if he will take all necessary steps to see that the workers resume work with proper trade union conditions and safeguards.

Mr. Isaacs: My Department is in touch with the parties and efforts are being made to find a basis on which work can be resumed.

Mr. Benn Levy: Could my right hon. Friend say whether or not this firm have disregarded the procedure enjoined for arbitration, and if they have done so, whether the trade unions are automatically released from the obligation to observe unilaterally a procedure which the other side have disregarded?

Mr. Isaacs: I would hesitate to be involved in this, but let me say that if hon. Members would leave the trade unions and the employers organisations to handle these things it would be a much easier way to get a settlement.

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question I asked was not one of detail in regards to a trade union

dispute but a matter of broad and important principle, involving the responsibility of all the Members of this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Civil Rights (Masterman Committee)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the report of the Masterman Committee, which is inquiring into the question of civil rights for civil servants.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Shortly.

Mr. Awbery: While thanking the Minister for that very brief reply, may I ask him if he is aware that this large body of men feel that they are suffering under a grave injustice, and will he do something to accelerate the report from this committee so that injustices can be removed?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are doing our best, and I think my hon. Friend will find that it will not be very long before the report is published.

Higher Grades (Salary)

Mr. I. J. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that it is considered necessary to postpone further increases of salary to higher civil servants, admitted by the Chorley Committee to be long overdue, he will state the net cost of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, after allowing for Income Tax and Surtax.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Chorley Committee estimate the gross cost of their recommendations at £400,000. The comparable net cost, after allowing for likely Income Tax and Surtax charges, is about £180,000.

Mr. Pitman: In view of the very small sum and the enormous services rendered by this loyal class of servants of this House and country, will he reconsider making retrospective any award and accelerating the decision in regard to it?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is another question.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of workers would resent the implementation of this report being given priority over more urgent wage claims, including the urgent one of equal pay for equal work?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Excise Licence, Luton

Mr. Warbey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what authority Customs and Excise, Northampton Collection, sent an excise licence to Messrs. Green, brewers, Luton, instead of to the licensee, Mrs. Egan, of The Sportsman, Round Green, Luton, although Mrs. Egan had herself remitted payment for the licence.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The first of the two instalments of licence duty was paid by the brewers, and the licence was issued to them on the assumption that they were acting as agents for the licensee. I understand that Mrs. Egan herself paid the second instalment, and has now got the licence.

Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have here a letter from Mrs. Egan, dated 8th March, in which the Excise officer at Northampton has informed her he was unable to get the licence back from the brewers and suggests that she should try it herself? Is it not highly improper that one of my right hon. Friend's officers should appear to condone the action of the brewers in trying to get this woman out of her premises?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is a conflict between what my hon. Friend has said and the information supplied to me. I will certainly look into it, and see what I can do to help Mrs. Egan if the situation is as she has described.

Special Contribution (Payments)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in many cases the yellow forms, No. 10 Con/S.C. (Payslip), which are being sent out in connection with the payment of Special Contribution do not show what interest is due or how it is calculated on advance payments; and if he will ensure that these details are in all cases shown on these forms.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Where Special Contribution was not paid by 1st January, 1949, a leaflet showing the interest due to date, and the amount that will accrue day by day thereafter, should be sent with the pay-slip except where the amount of interest is negligible and is not demanded. Where an advance payment has been made, the pay-slip should show the interest on that payment which goes to satisfy part of the total amount due, calculated at the rate prescribed by law, namely, 2 per cent. per annum from the date of the advance payment to the 1st January, 1949. If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of any case where these details have not been given, I will have the matter looked into.

EUROPEAN CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been drawn to the Motion referring to the European Consultative Assembly which is on the Paper? It is supported by a large number of Members, almost 100, belonging to all parties in the House. Will he now make a statement on this matter?
[That this House welcomes the important steps taken by His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the other signatories to the Brussels Pact, to establish a Council of Europe, consisting of a Council of Ministers and a Consultative Assembly; and is of the opinion (1) that the representation of this country in the Consultative Assembly should be on the basis of at least one representative for every 2,000,000 of the population, which would mean 25 representatives; (2) that each representative should be free to speak and vote as he or she thinks fit at any meeting of the Consultative Assembly; and (3) that the British representatives for the first Consultative Assembly should reflect the relative strength of the political forces in the House of Commons, and should be appointed from Members of both Houses by a resolution of this House.]

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I am not able to make any statement on the question


of the United Kingdom representation in the Consultative Assembly until all the Governments concerned have finally settled the constitution of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication or idea of how long this will take?

The Prime Minister: I should hope it will not be long delayed now.

Mr. Churchill: But what does "long delayed now" mean? A month or two months, or what will it be?

The Prime Minister: I could not say more exactly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Churchill: I hope the right hon. Gentleman realises that I am anxious to rescue him from the very uncomfortable and invidious position in which he lies in the meanwhile when he appears to be denying that each representative of Great Britain shall be free to speak and vote as he or she thinks fit at any meeting of the Consultative Assembly; and, secondly, that the British representatives at the first Consultative Assembly should reflect the relative strength of the political forces in the House of Commons and should be appointed from Members of both Houses by a Resolution of this House. The point I am going to put is whether the right hon. Gentleman can afford indefinitely to go on denying, or appearing to deny, recognition to these obvious democratic truths and principles?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is founding his question on assumptions that he chooses to make. I have neither affirmed nor denied any of these propositions; I have merely informed him that it is usual to wait until a constitution has been formed and agreed upon before taking action. That is all there is to it. The right hon. Gentleman jumps off before the pistol.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. For my own guidance in the future would you be good enough to advise me how it comes about that a Motion on the Order Paper can become the subject of a Private Notice Question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In reply to the hon. Member this is a Private Notice Question which was submitted to the Speaker's Office in the ordinary way and to which I gave my agreement.

Mr. Gallacher: But 1 have always understood that the Ruling was that a Private Notice Question could only be allowed provided it was raised immediately following a particular event, and must have a sense of urgency attached to it. I only want guidance for my own benefit because 1 may be inclined to use it myself.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is in error.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (BUDGET DATE)

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to make any statement to us today upon the course of Business next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 14th March—Supply (6th allotted Day); Report stage of the Civil Vote on Account. Debate on the East African Groundnuts Scheme.

Tuesday, 15th March—Supply (7th allotted Day); Is is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Air Estimates, 1949–50, and to consider Votes A, 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10, and Air Supplementary Estimate, 1948–49 in Committee.

Wednesday, 16th March—Second Reading of the Housing Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Thursday, 17th March—Supply (8th allotted Day) Committee. The Supplementary Estimates for the House of Commons; Government Hospitality; the Board of Trade; Miscellaneous Works Services; the Ministry of Supply; and the Ministry of Food will be considered.

At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the financial year.

Consideration of Motion to approve the Post Office (Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland) Agreement.

Friday, 18th March—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to announce that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Wednesday, 6th April.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether his attention has been called to a Notice of Motion standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself with regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is it the intention of the Government to make any statement with regard to that Universal Declaration, and if not, is he prepared to provide time for a Debate upon the Motion?
[That this House welcomes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and calls upon His Majesty's Government to give full effect to the Declaration, including the necessary amendment of British and Colonial Legislation. ]

Mr. Morrison: As regards a statement, I have a feeling that statements have been made on behalf of the Government about the Declaration of Human Rights, and my recollection is, broadly speaking, that His Majesty's Government are in accord with it and that our practice is in accord with it. I do not think there is dispute between us, and I should not have thought it was necessary to provide a special opportunity for Debate, though it might come up for consideration on one Supply Day or another.

Mr. Davies: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman that further legislation may be necessary if this full Declaration is adopted? It was on that matter that we required further information.

Mr. Morrison: I suggest that if there are points on which the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks our legislative provision is not adequate, perhaps it would be best if he put down an appropriate Question to the Minister or Ministers concerned.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: With regard to the impending North Atlantic Pact, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us

that we shall be given an opportunity of debating the terms of this pact before the signature of this country is finally appended? I ask that because apparently the French Foreign Secretary and the Italian Prime Minister have given assurances to their respective Parliaments that they will be allowed to debate the matter prior to signature.

Mr. Morrison: I am not an authority on the practices of foreign Parliaments. We shall follow the customary British Parliamentary practice. The provisional signature of the document is the responsibility of the Government. As I have said before, there follows, however, the responsibility of the House of Commons to ratify or not to ratify, and that will give an appropriate opportunity for Debate.

Captain John Crowder: As the Lord President has been kind enough to give us the date of the Budget, will he let hon. Members know as soon as possible how long he proposes the Easter Recess will be? Perhaps next week he will let us know?

Mr. Morrison: I shall try to do that.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Reverting to the question of the Declaration of Human Rights, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is really something quite new in the history of international law, indeed in the history of the world? Is it not in every way appropriate that on such an occasion proper notice should be taken of it by discussion of the matter in the British House of Commons?

Mr. Morrison: This is rather a theoretical and abstract doctrine. My recollection is that there is no material difference of opinion between us in the House of Commons about the matter. There is no point in putting these things on for Debate for purely ceremonial and notice-taking reasons. Parliament comes in where there are differences of opinion. My recollection is that there is no disagreement between us about the matter, and I should not have thought the case was strong enough to arrange for a special opportunity for Debate.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Lord President said that Parliament could either ratify or not ratify the Atlantic Pact. Is it not the case that there will be an interval


between its publication and its signature by the Foreign Secretary on behalf of this country, and would it not be appropriate for a statement to be made in Parliament in order that the views of Parliament may at least be heard? We need not decide at present the question of a Debate before the Foreign Secretary proceeds to sign this very important document.

Mr. Morrison: That would be most unusual in our practice. The Government must make up its mind whether it, as a Government, assents to the Treaty. If it does, it must take the responsibility of signing, subject to Parliamentary ratification. No doubt at the appropriate time my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement to the House, when the House can put supplementary questions if it so wishes. We shall, of course, provide facilities for a Debate on the issue of ratification. That is the right procedure; the Government must take its responsibility, but Parliament has its full responsibility and the right to disagree with the Government if it so wishes.

Mr. Warbey: As we are dealing here with what is really a far-reaching, new departure of policy, surely the policy underlying the proposal for the Pact might very well be debated by this House before the actual terms are signed, more particularly in view of the fact that members of the parliaments of other countries, especially of the American Congress, apparently have had an opportunity of discussing this matter long before we have.

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, this is very premature. My hon. Friend has not seen the Pact, as far as I know. [Interruption.] He has not seen it, as far as I know. Therefore, he is presuming rather a lot. He really had better wait until he has seen the Pact: then he will be in a better position to discuss its merits.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman has enunciated about the Atlantic Pact apply also to the European Consultative Assembly? Are we to understand that there is to be no Debate in this House until after governments have fixed the basis of a European Consultative Assembly?

Mr. Morrison: That is in a different category altogether. In the case of the Atlantic Pact we are dealing with something in the nature of a treaty—I think it will be a treaty. Therefore, the doctrine applies to that quite categorically. The European Council is another matter.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), in the case of the United States Constitution, of course, the Senate has particular responsibilities under their Constitution; but we really must not drift into the doctrine that what is proper under the constitution of foreign countries is necessarily proper under the practice of our ancient British Parliament.

CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS (INQUIRY)

Mr. Fairhurst: May I ask the Lord President whether his attention has been drawn to a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) and Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and supported also by 206 other hon. Members; and, if so, whether he will make a statement?
[That this House is of the opinion that the time has arrived for an examination of the law relating to cruelty to wild animals and calls upon the Government to set up an appropriate body to investigate this question and to make recommendations.]

Mr. Morrison: This is a notice of Motion asking that a committee of inquiry of some sort should be appointed to go into the matter of practices in relation to alleged cruelty to animals. We think that there is a case for an investigation by a suitable committee, which might be desired not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), but by others who take a very different view of the matter from that which he takes. Therefore, the Government accept the principle of a committee of inquiry—although we are not committing ourselves to the exact terms of reference at this stage—and steps will be taken accordingly in due course.

Mr. Fairhurst: In view of the reply of my right hon. Friend, which, I am


sure, will give intense satisfaction to millions of people up and down the country—[Interruption.] If hon. Members had only seen the correspondence I have had on this matter they might think differently. In view of the satisfactory reply of the Lord President, it might be for the convenience of the House if I stated now—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not wish to provide food for controversy, but it is my intention tomorrow to ask the permission of the House to withdraw, or not to take the Second Reading of, the Prohibition of Fox Hunting Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I should advise the hon. Member that he would be perfectly within his rights, if he so wished, to withdraw the Bill now. Different considerations might apply tomorrow.

Mr. Fairhurst: In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I beg to ask permission from the House to withdraw the Prohibition of Fox Hunting Bill.

Earl Winterton: May I refer to the answer which was given by the Lord President? No doubt at some later stage he will explain more fully what the terms of reference of this committee will be, and whether they will inquire into the treatment of all wild animals, whether hunted or not. Is this so?

Mr. Morrison: I think that would be a very good question for the noble Lord to put when that occasion arises.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The matter is not one for discussion now.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I should like to ask the Lord President, having regard to this withdrawal and to the great in-

terest in another Bill—Licensing (Amendment) (Tied Houses) Bill—which is to come before the House on Friday, whether he is prepared to try to arrange for a reasonable and equitable division of time tomorrow in order to discuss this very important matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The division of time is not a matter for the right hon. Gentleman, but for the Chair.

PROHIBITION OF FOX HUNTING BILL

Order for Second Reading Tomorrow read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BILL PRESENTED

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL

"to enable effect to be given to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on the tenth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight; to amend the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1948, relating to the construction of passenger steamers, to lifesaving appliances, wireless and radio navigational aids and to other matters affected by the said Convention, and to amend the provisions of those Acts relating to fees, "presented by Mr. Barnes; supported by Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Noel-Baker, Mr. Walter Edwards, Mr. Lindgren and Mr. Callaghan; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered:
That this day, the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'Clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1949–50, AND ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1948–49

MR. SHINWELL'S STATEMENT

Order for Committee read.

3.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I beg to move, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Since the Army Estimates were presented to the House last year the Army has almost completed the reduction from its war-time strength to something approaching its peace-time organisation. At the same time, additional responsibilities have been imposed which have prevented the change being accomplished as smoothly as we desired. I propose to mention some of the tasks which are the most exacting in demands on our manpower and resources.
As recently as June, 1948, the civil authorities in Malaya, faced with a campaign to overthrow the administration and to dislocate the economic life of the country, asked the Army to assist in maintaining order. Some thousands of well-armed Chinese operating from bases deep in the jungle were following a systematic policy of murder and intimidation, together with the destruction of buildings, machinery and rubber plantations. Since June, as hon. Members are aware, in addition to the 4th Hussars and other reinforcements, the Guards Brigade has been sent from the United Kingdom. It was naturally some time before these reinforcements could be acclimatised but they are now operating with much efficiency against an enemy who is favoured by every military factor except that of equipment and supply.
In such circumstances, a very high state of efficiency in the use of weapons, in physical fitness and personal courage is necessary. Living conditions for our troops, even when not in action, are not as satisfactory as I should like, though every attempt is being made to improve them, and when they are in action conditions are, I am advised, as bad as can

be experienced anywhere. Nevertheless, in the face of all these difficulties our troops are performing their task with great vigour.
The second important factor which has affected planning rather than manpower and resources but which must, nevertheless, have an increasing effect on our dispositions, is the establishment of the Western Union Defence Organisation. The defence implications of the signing of the Brussels Pact have already been discussed in connection with the Statement on Defence. The signatories, for their mutual protection, have undertaken commitments appropriate to their resources and defence requirements, and it will be a vital part of the British Army's planning, and an equally vital call on our resources, to fill its allotted role in Western Union defence, both in the provision of equipment and in the arrangements for concerted action in emergency.
Already we have provided some of our best and most highly trained staffs for the headquarters of Western Union and for the Chiefs of Staff Organisation which has now been established. Moreover, we have already offered certain types of equipment, surplus to our immediate needs, to assist in the training of the forces being raised by the other member nations. Their needs are so urgent that it may be necessary to draw substantially on our own reserves. In that event, we shall require to increase production to meet our own requirements; but the most valuable contribution we can make to furthering the Western Union Pact is by providing the most up-to-date equipment for our own Forces and by pushing on research and development to ensure that those Forces—and, indeed, all the Forces of Western Union—are assured of every advantage which modern science and production can give.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton (Horsham)  rose—

Mr. Shinwell: I beg all hon. and right hon. Members to allow me to proceed with my speech so that they may see the whole picture without interruption, and then we can get on. There is another task, which is not spectacular, but which is vital to our preparations. That is the reconditioning of considerable reserves of equipment and vehicles which remain to us from the war.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give way? Then I raise a point of Order. It is most unusual when a question—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not a point of Order."] It is for the Chair to decide. The hon. Member is not yet the Speaker and I hope he never will be. It is most unusual when someone rises from this bench to put a question to a right hon. Gentleman, for him to refuse to give way. Technically, no doubt, he can do so, but it is a most unusual procedure.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can only say that it is entirely a matter for the right hon. or hon. Member who is on his feet.

Mr. Shinwell: There is another task which is not spectacular but which is vital to our preparations. That is the reconditioning of considerable reserves of equipment and vehicles which remain to us from the war. When the war ended the Army had vast stocks of military equipment scattered throughout the world and stored, in many cases, in the open under conditions totally unsuitable for permanent storage. It was one of our most difficult tasks to take stock of these reserves, to decide what should and could be kept, to dispose of the surplus and to make adequate arrangements for the redeployment and safe storage of the remainder. This had to be done at a time when skilled men were pouring out of the Army in great numbers—as, indeed, it was essential they should in order to restore the civil economy of this country.
We could not delay the release of men in the Army Repair Organisation. They took their places under release schemes in exactly the same way as the fighting arms. But, despite shortages in certain grades, we have, with the assistance of civilian employees and the resources of the Ministry of Supply, done a great deal in bringing repairable equipment in depots back to a state of serviceability besides maintaining in a fit condition equipment in the hands of our troops. However, there is still much to be done. A substantial part of the expenditure estimated under the heading of "Stores" will be devoted to the repair of equipment and the provision of spare parts. To give one instance. In this year and next the Ministry of Supply and the Army will begin the complete rebuilding of 65,000 vehicles

of selected types which came into the Army during the war.
This programme will take some time to complete and is in addition to the normal overhaul programme of vehicles and of the large range of other equipment which needs repair. From some points of view, we should like to curtail this reconditioning programme and extend the production of new vehicles. But that would hinder production for the export drive and to some extent, therefore, this repair programme of vehicles can be regarded as an acknowledgment by the Army of the prior needs of the country's economic recovery. But as equipment gets older and the supply of spare parts more difficult, repair becomes completely uneconomic. This is already happening with many of the lighter types of Army vehicles and the time is not far distant when it will apply to many other types. In future, therefore, there will be a tendency to increase our calls on new production. Nevertheless, demands on the repair facilities will be substantial for several years to come.
All these commitments impose severe demands on our manpower. Meanwhile, the Army must provide for its fundamental tasks of sustaining the minimum essential garrisons in overseas theatres; of providing a reserve in this country sufficient to meet any emergency calls that may arise; of providing the basic organisation for expansion in war including the essential nucleus of Anti-Aircraft Command; of providing a training organisation adequate for the large intake of National Service men and for the Regular recruits; and of meeting all the administrative demands involved in the maintenance of our Forces at home and overseas. In the present disturbed conditions prevailing in many parts of the world, no lessening of these commitments can be assumed. I cannot, therefore, foresee any substantial reduction in the demands which the Army will have to make on the country's manpower.
I must give some account of the work undertaken during the year to reorganise the Army in its peace-time shape. I have already mentioned the considerations which must determine the shape and disposition of the peace-time Army. They may be briefly listed under these five heads: garrisons abroad, reserve at home, nucleus for mobilisation,


training organisation, essential administration.
As regards the first, at one time it seemed that the Army might no longer be required to maintain Forces in Austria and Trieste, but prospects of relief are unchanged and our garrisons have had to be maintained in these two places as well as in the British Army of the Rhine. The strength of B.A.O.R., which contains a considerable proportion of our overseas troops, is being kept under review to see what savings in administrative troops may be made; but here, as in other theatres, it is essential that the fighting units of the Army should be maintained in a condition of strength and efficiency.
The next important function of the Army in all theatres, but especially at home, is to provide the organisation upon which expansion in the event of emergency can be based. It is one of the functions of the Territorial Army to assist in this object, and not least in respect of the speedy mobilisation and expansion of Anti-Aircraft defence, where a large section of the Territorial Army supplements the Anti-Aircraft units of the Regular Army. We are at present in a stage of transition in this field. Should mobilisation be necessary now or at any time in the immediate future, we shall have available until the statutory end of the present emergency, a substantial number of men who served in the war and who have been released into Class W or Class Z Reserve.
These men constitute a formidable reserve of trained manpower; but they have no liability for current training and their efficiency must, therefore, decrease with time. But later, as the effect of National Service becomes fully operative, we shall be receiving into the Territorial Army men with a liability for four years' part-time service after their 18 months' full-time service. This will mean that we shall have reserves of well over half-a-million always available and trained up to date. Thus, as the size and usefulness of the Class Z reserve diminishes, a fresh reserve will rise up to take its place.
I shall mention two points which arise from the transitional nature of- the present situation which I have stressed in the past but about which there always seems to have been some misunderstanding. The first point is that because the call-up,

classification, and allotment to units of the Class Z Reservists in an emergency would necessarily take some time, we have devised the Registered Reservist Scheme at present confined to ex-members of Anti-Aircraft Command, to help accelerate mobilisation of Anti-Aircraft units and formations. The Registered Reservist must already be a Class W or Class Z Reservist, and the sole effect of registration is to make him and his qualifications known to his local unit, so that he can be called, if an emergency does occur, to a unit near his home and to a job already allocated to him without the necessary expenditure of time involved in normal mobilisation.
That is the sole purpose of the Registered Reservist Scheme. It is not intended for those who are willing to undertake training liability—such men can join the Territorial Army—and it therefore has its limitations. Nevertheless, it is a useful scheme in the present transitional stage and I should like to see it being much more strongly supported than it is at present. Perhaps I might now appeal to Members on all sides of the House to assist in making its nature and purpose more widely known and in requesting still more ex-Service men of Anti-Aircraft Command to enrol themselves. The sole qualification is previous experience in an Anti-Aircraft unit or formation: the liability in peace is notification of particulars to a local unit and the liability in emergency is to become an effective part of an A.A. unit a few days earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Brigadier Peto: rose—

Earl Winterton: We cannot interrupt. The hon. Gentleman is reading his speech. It is like being in church and interrupting the sermon.

Mr. Gallacher: Why cannot you behave yourselves?

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I should like to call attention to the most insulting remark made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and addressed to the Opposition in general. He said, "Why cannot you behave yourselves?"

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I should say to all concerned that I hope there will be a little moderation and restraint.


The noble Lord was rather provocative. At the same time I do not think that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) should address a remark like that to hon. Members.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. I am always glad to set a good example to the noble Lord but he never accepts it.

Earl Winterton: Normally, of course, we should not call attention to this fact, but is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, entirely to read a speech? Should not a Member occasionally look up from his notes and appear to be making a speech rather than reading one?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In strictness, it is not in Order to read a speech, but I have a discretion, and there are exceptions.

Mr. Shinwell: I may say in parenthesis that I require no instruction from the noble Lord on how to make a speech entirely without notes and at any time I am ready to take him on. If I may say so, since he interrupted, if he would stop performing like a political cockatoo it would help the Debate—and, Sir, that was not in my brief.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask right hon. and hon. Members to refrain from these personal references, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have made a request to the right hon. Gentleman, and he must be allowed to withdraw.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called upon Mr. Shinwell.

Mr. Shinwell: Thanks for that interlude. It provided a brief respite.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton rose—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have two points of Order at once. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to withdraw.

Mr. Shinwell: I was not aware that anything I said was offensive but, if it is thought that my remarks were derogatory to the noble Lord, I withdraw unreservedly. Despite this speech, I am a man of peace. I am not of a quarrelsome disposition.
The second point relates to the function of the volunteer Territorial Army. This is to provide the training nucleus upon which the expanded Territorial Army can be formed from 1st July, 1950, onwards. I know that in appealing to ex-Service men to come forward and undertake training liability which must interfere with their leisure time, we may be accused of demanding yet more service from those who have already made a full contribution to the country's defence, and it has been suggested that we should appeal to those who did not see military service in the last war. But our requirement is for trained men because one of the functions of the volunteer Territorial Army is—and I cannot say this too often—to assist in training the National Service men. Meanwhile, of course, the Territorial Army organisation exists and forms the skeleton upon which mobilisation could largely be effected if required. The Territorial Army is not, of course, our sole reserve for mobilisation. We have, besides the Class Z and Class W Reserves, the Regular Army Reserve, the Supplementary Reserve and the various categories of Officer Reserve.
I now invite attention to the administrative commitments of the Army. The maintenance of a modern force, the constant supply of its food, petrol and other supplies, and the provision and maintenance of its equipment and it reserves, are tasks which make increasing demands on our manpower. The more complex the weapons of an army the more varied is its maintenance. The high degree of mechanisation and the increase in the power and number of front line weapons of our Army today necessarily involves a larger administrative tail than that required for the pre-1914 or pre-1939 division. Yet manpower engaged in repair and maintenance of vehicles or in the storage and provision of equipment is indispensable. This is the price we must pay for modern technique and increased striking power, but the result in


the unfortunate event of war is to our advantage.
What progress, then, have we made in organising the Army to fulfil the tasks to which I have referred? In spite of the rundown, our overseas garrisons have been kept efficiently manned and we have been able to despatch reserves to points where they are needed. As regards the training of the Army, this has been affected since the end of the war by two factors—first, the rate of run-down, which caused a very rapid turnover of men in units, and, secondly, the extent of the Army's day to day commitments, which left little time for higher formation training. As a result activity has generally been confined to individual and unit training up to about battalion standard, except in the Middle East Command, where brigade training has been carried out.
I should mention that the conditions of active service in Palestine and Malaya have demanded a high standard of discipline and tactical alertness on the part of the units concerned, to the undoubted benefit of their fighting efficiency. Higher training has so far been confined to study exercises for officers. These have ranged from the annual exercise which the C.I.G.S. has instituted at Camberley with the senior commanders of the Army and his scientific advisers, to tactical exercises without troops on a brigade or divisional level.
The C.I.G.S.' annual exercises have been of great value in crystallising all the lessons of the late war and in developing thought for the future on scientific lines. Lesser theoretical exercises, which have been held, have been of considerable value in keeping military technique alive, but they are not a substitute for practical experience in command of troops. As the experience of the war recedes the need for reviving practical experience in command of formations in training increases. It is therefore our intention to restart training exercises on a formation level this summer and, in the autumn, to carry out a large-scale exercise with troops in the British Army of the Rhine. Towards our requirements for mobilisation we have concentrated, on the personnel side, on recruitment for the Regular Army and the building up of the Territorial Army. There has been an extensive recruiting

campaign since October to obtain the volunteers necessary to the Territorial Army if it is to carry out effectively the reserve training of the National Service men from 1950 onwards. This drive for recruits will go on throughout 1949. There is a big gap to fill, but I am confident that there will be a substantial increase in time for the camping season.
We have, during the past year, been able to make some improvements in Territorial Army conditions. The bounty has been increased so that the average wage earner should not be out of pocket in attending camp; pay and rations are now given for all training over eight hours; and the new rates of pay and allowances announced for the Regular Army will apply equally to the Territorial Army. Most of the nationalised industries have now agreed to grant extra holidays with balance of pay, subject to certain conditions, to their employees who attend T.A. annual camp.

Earl Winterton: Which industries?

Mr. Shinwell: The National Coal Board, the civil aviation authorities, the Bank of England and the Transport Com mission. I also understand that the British Electricity Authority and the Gas Council now have the matter under consideration. We hope for a favourable reply. National Government and local government employees are already safeguarded and, in addition, a large number of private employers have made this valuable contribution to T.A. recruiting.
As regards accommodation, in the current year over 200 new Territorial Army Centres will have been brought into use and the building of over 600 married quarters for permanent staff has been authorised. In addition, a further 98 quarters have been acquired by purchase and some 180 by lease. In the coming financial year this building programme will be continued. Machinery has been set up to assist Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations to acquire property or land and is now beginning to take effect. It is hoped that these measures will considerably ease the accommodation problems.
The obstacles in the way of progress in the expansion of the Territorial Army are, therefore, being removed as far as it is possible to do so. But we cannot hope, nor do we intend to try, to make


service in the Territorial Army so easy and attractive that men will rush to join it for their own personal gain. Our appeal is to those who are willing to give their service to the country in this vital task. Many thousands have responded: they have set a fine example, and I have been deeply impressed by their enthusiasm and devotion wherever I have met them. The Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations, commanding officers of units and officers and men of all ranks deserve the commendation and thanks of this House and of all the country for their voluntary service.
I should now like to turn from the Territorial Army to the question of recruiting for the Regular Army. We should, naturally, prefer to see the Army based on a strong Regular force, adequate to fulfil all our overseas commitments and, in addition, to operate the administrative and training organisation in the United Kingdom. The existence of an adequate Regular Army, together with a strong Territorial Army, might later enable the period of National Service to be considerably reduced. But during the war recruitment for the Regular Army was suspended and the size of the Regular Army is, as a result, today inadequate for it to undertake, without assistance, the task of maintaining our overseas garrisons.
Recruiting is, therefore, proceeding as rapidly as circumstances permit. We are at present working under conditions of full employment; nevertheless, recruiting figures have been good. In 1947 and 1948 the numbers of those recruited for the Regular Army were approximately 40,500 and 34,250. This compares with the figures of 25,700 and 38,500 in 1937 and 1938 respectively. This cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory. But we need still more recruits and we shall need them even more as those men who have enrolled for short Service engagements begin to leave.
To assist in recruiting we are doing all we can to improve conditions of service. I shall not deal now with the question of pay and allowances, since the recent increases in this direction were dealt with last week in the Debate on the White Paper. In any case, it is my opinion that while rates of pay and allowances are important, it is not this matter which needs our attention at the moment,

because we have endeavoured to make the soldier's terms and conditions of service as nearly as possible comparable to those of men engaged in equivalent civil employment, after taking into account the added burdens of Army life.
It is the housing of the Army that needs our closest attention at present. Modern barracks and married quarters are needed in large numbers, both at home and overseas. At home, the increasing obsolescence of our accommodation, the lowering of the age at which marriage is recognised and the acute shortage of civilian housing have given us a heavy problem. Overseas, the redeployment of the Army has meant that many established stations and barracks have been given up and we have moved into areas where we have had to build from the ground up. We have, therefore, provided in the Estimates a gross amount of nearly £29,000,000 for works, buildings and lands, including over £5,000,000 for married quarters. Unfortunately, it will be some years before we overtake the universal shortage of married quarters and provide accommodation to which both officers and other ranks are entitled. But I give hon. Members the assurance that this vital matter of suitable housing and barrack accommodation is being treated with the utmost sense of urgency.
Once the men are in the Army it is, of course, of vital importance that the best possible use is made of their time. We have, therefore, made a thorough investigation of the use of our manpower and already we have applied certain measures which we hope will be effective. However, if in war, men are expected to perform administrative duties, it is obvious that they should be performing those duties in peace time. Nevertheless, we have found that a considerable proportion of the ordinary regimental soldier's time has been spent in what might be called "housekeeping" duties. Some experience of domestic chores of every kind is, of course, necessary for a soldier to be fully efficient. In war conditions it is inevitable that a soldier will have to fend for himself in every detail, and he must know how to do so.
What we are trying to achieve, however, is the correct balance so as to give this essential training while, at the same time, avoiding continuous drudgery. We employ at present many thousands of


civilians, both at home and overseas, to help in these chores, and it is our policy to increase the scope of this civilian employment, especially in this country, where the position is not so good as it is abroad, so as to enable the soldier to spend less time in fatigues and more in training.
That is one aspect of the employment of soldiers—to see that we make the best use of their service; but there is an important complementary aspect; that is, to see that in discharging that service their own position as citizens of this country is adequately safeguarded. The introduction into the Army of large numbers of National Service men has given us additional responsibilities in the field of welfare. The reception of so large a proportion of the country's youth at an age when they are completing their physical development and when they are, in many cases, particularly open to influence, whether good or evil, in moral matters, places a grave burden on all the Services and, especially from the point of view of numbers, on the Army. Welfare must always be primarily a matter for the unit and therefore commanding officers have been made fully aware of their responsibilities in this matter.
As regards education, it is, of course, impossible for the Army, which must devote most of its time to training and essential duty, to provide as much in the way of education for all men as we might desire, but nowadays a man cannot be an efficient soldier unless he is able to tackle his job intelligently. A certain minimum standard of education is, therefore, essential and we have arranged to provide special instruction for those entrants who, whether because they have allowed their school training to lapse or, for some other reason, are of a low educational standard when they enter the Army. We also provide facilities for general education in units and for special courses for men who are willing to work on their own special subjects in their spare time. We have provided Army education centres and Army colleges to assist in this work.
The health of the Army during 1948 has been excellent, and the year has been one of considerable progress in many directions. A new system of medical classification was introduced officially into the Army in April of last year and the

result has been a great improvement in the medical examination of new entrants and serving personnel, and in the facility with which physical standards can be related to particular tasks and climatic conditions. As regards National Service men, recent medical investigation shows that they respond very well to training, that their physical condition improves rapidly after their entry into the Army and that their weight tends to increase during their first weeks of training.
A question of vital interest to the Regular as well as to the National Service man is that of resettlement in civil life. The National Service man, in most cases, will have no special difficulty because he will in future be a normal class of entrant to the labour market. He will, however, be assisted so far as he has become a skilled Army tradesman, by the recent agreement with the trade unions who have recognised 54 Army trades. Ex-Regulars will be given first priority after disabled persons by the Ministry of Labour for vocational training in skilled trades in Government training centres and technical colleges. Special arrangements have been made for a proportion of Civil Service posts to be reserved for ex-Regulars, and I hope to extend this scheme in the future. Such are the main problems of organisation that face us and some of the measures which we have taken to solve them.
Now I must speak of the charges which have been made about the alleged lack of Divisions ready to take the field at a moment's notice. Hon. Members have pressed for more information, and have suggested that if the facts were disclosed they would create alarm and despondency among our friends and bring jubilation to the hearts of our enemies. They seem to imagine that the sole measure of the Army's achievement is the number of divisions ready as a sort of expeditionary force to take the field at the sound of the pistol. Well, there are many Members on all sides of the House with military experience and also staff experience. They can see from the White Paper on Defence and from Vote A of the Army Estimates exactly how many men there will be in the Army during the coming year.
They know, most of them, the number of men required to make up a division and its necessary backing in the field. It


is a simple matter for them to work out what is the maximum number of divisions that could be represented by the Army's total strength. If the sole task of the Army was to organise itself now as an expeditionary force in divisions, I can assure them that their mathematics would produce the right answer and that the necessary equipment is by and large available to arm that manpower in that organisation, and a good deal more.
But what do they want me to do? Do they want me to withdraw all the overseas garrisons to a central point? Do they want me to stop the Regular Army from taking part in the training of recruits? Do they want me to take skilled tradesmen from the tasks of repair and maintenance to which I have referred and to put them into the order of battle to sit and wait for a D-Day which they think is just around the corner? They know very well that none of these things can be done. The Army has tasks to fulfil in the way of day-to-day defence, the policing tasks which in magnitude exceed anything we have known before. They know that if there is trouble in any part of the world overseas where British interests are involved there are available garrisons organised, not as expeditionary forces ready to take part in a major war, but in the manner best suited for dealing with the commitments which face them at the moment and which cannot be neglected.
This does not mean that there are no troops organised on a divisional basis. There are, and hon. Members know there are, but to state their numbers would not only mislead the House and the country in general about our actual strengths but would provide a potential enemy with valuable knowledge about our organisation which I see no reason for presenting to them free of charge. If there is an emergency, as I have explained already, the organisation is there to mobilise the Army according to a pre-arranged plan and to pour into the moulds which already exist the stream of reserves which are now available. Further, our plans are so arranged that from a date in 1950 we shall be receiving fresh streams of Reserves trained up to the minute and kept in training by their reserve training liability. That is the situation, and provided we can proceed

with our present plans I see no reason for alarm.
Furthermore, every day that passes produces a tightening-up of our organisation: more efficient and sustained training; additional trained reserves; a better balanced force; together with more balanced equipment. And, in addition to our requirements in manpower, equipment, accommodation and the like, I regard it as one of my principal tasks to produce in the Army a body of officers and men and women of other ranks who are contented and happy in their tasks and who feel that being in the Army is worth while. - I am not speaking in terms of complacency or undue optimism. In certain matters we have to overtake long years of neglect; in others, while the respect for tradition should be maintained, modifications in custom and in relations are essential. Above all, we must inculcate in the Army the readiness among all ranks to adapt themselves to changing circumstances.
We have no sinister designs and no thoughts of aggression. On the contrary, we believe this country can best prosper in the framework of peace and friendship with all nations, but we cause no threat to others if we remain determined to pursue our own way of life and are resolved to employ the means to retain it. For this purpose, the Army makes its contribution to co-ordinated measures of national defence, and is organising its manpower and resources for use should an emergency arise while, at the same time, we prepare, on the basis of study and intensive research, our long-term plans. For all these reasons we ask for the necessary financial provision.

4.37 p.m.

Brigadier Head: I think all Members on this side of the House would wish me to associate them at the outset of my remarks with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about our troops in Malaya. Theirs is a very thankless task so soon after a war, and undertaken in a very bad climate. It has not surprised any of us to hear that, as usual, the task is being very well performed. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House would want me to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his zoological references to some of my right hon. Friends on the Front


Bench. I would, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman that several similes spring to mind and that very near the parrot house in the Zoo there is a most combative bird which is known as the talking mynah.
There was good stuff in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I, for one, felt that here was somebody who had some grasp of the main problems. I must confess that 1 recognised many of his proposals as being the subject matter of many of our own speeches over the last three years. None the less, I am gratified to see them, and no less for that reason. I felt less happy when the right hon. Gentleman branched off into what I diagnosed to be a personal part of his speech, namely, the method of calculating the number of divisions. I think that, after our experience in the Army, to ask us to get out a piece of pencil and paper and to work it out that way was putting a very low estimate upon what we have all been doing in the Army over a long period of years
It seems to me that the really vital matter in this question of the Estimates is how it comes about that, with £305 million to spend and 550,000 men in the Army, we have so few formations and units that can fight. That is the fundamental question, and it is not solved by the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetical suggestions. He asks us what we want him to do to improve it in this respect. It will be the object of my remarks, not so much to follow one by one his suggestions and to criticise or praise them as to try to give some broad picture of what we on this side of the House consider to be the main troubles of the Army and to say what we believe to be the best steps to take to put them right.
I believe that everyone who studies these matters would agree that the fundamental question in the Army today is the changes which have been brought about through the advent of national service, and that the problem with which the right hon. Gentleman is confronted is due to the impact of an excessively large call-up upon a Regular Army and upon a volunteer Territorial Army which are both under strength and for whom voluntary recruiting has been far from satisfactory. That is the cause of his present problem and that I believe to be largely the cause of the small number

of troops that can fight. I accept, and give full credit, to the fact that the National Service scheme was essential after 1945. The Government deserve full credit for bringing it in. What I do not accept and am entirely opposed to is that this method of forming an Army should continue indefinitely. It is my belief that if it does continue we shall have a thoroughly bad and ineffective Army at a very high price.
One thing which the right hon. Gentleman said filled me with satisfaction. He said that later on, it may be, if all goes well, we shall be able to have a reduction in National Service, but he outlined no steps as to how he would impel and hasten the necessary voluntary recruitment which would make that possible. That is the main criticism which I have against his remarks. The defect of the present scheme is that, in order to retain the universal principle of National Service and in order to call up everybody, we are taking on more National Service men than we really need and that even then we have an annual surplus, except this year. Last year it was 50,000, and there will be another in 1950 and another in 1951. We have far more men than we want, and that results in deferment, delay of call-up and a bigger gap between when a boy leaves school and the call-up. That gap is an unsettling and harmful period in their lives. In other words, in order to call up everybody, the Army has more men than it needs. That is the main defect of the National Service scheme.
The second difficulty springs from the part-time period of service of these men. In the middle of 1950, these National Service men will start to spill out into the Territorial volunteers who will look after them during their part-time service. By the middle of 1954 the Reserve tank will be full and we shall have our full quota in the Army as a whole. I wonder how many hon. Members realise that when that Reserve is full, and including the Regular Army, and the National Service men during their one and a half years' full time, and the volunteer Territorials, the total number in the whole Army will come to more than one million men. What I ask the House is: Are we quite sure that that is what we want and what we can afford? A million men is a vast number to have either serving or in the Reserve in peace-time.


My fear is that the number is not dictated by any plan or by any conception of the Army we want, but by the desire to retain the universal principle of National Service.
I would also remind hon. Members that equipment is becoming highly complex and very expensive and, in terms of production, needs a great deal of effort. Can we really afford to equip a force of that size, because the capacity to equip should today be a major factor in deciding the number of men required? On mobilisation, a force of that size would take a very long time to equip, and it is my belief that the last half or third of that whole force might well have to wait the best part of a year. During that interval these men could have been on military training and I suggest could have completed their training without any pre-mobilisation service. I suggest that the present numbers are getting rather too big for the country's manpower and for our equipment programme, are in effect larger than the Army really requires and only reflect the desire to retain the universal principle of National Service.
The right hon. Gentleman also made some remarks about recruiting for the Regular Army, and I think he will agree that the fundamental problem and key to the whole solution of the Army's health and efficiency to-day is that the Regular Army should be happy and up to strength. That is where I was disappointed with the steps that are proposed to improve voluntary recruiting for the regular Army. We were told what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions were, but we were given no concrete statement about what would happen. The fact remains that the Army today is very much under strength, and, what is most unfortunate, it is under strength in what constitutes the very backbone of a modern army, technicians and good material for officers and N.C.O's. It is doubly unfortunate that the worst shortage lies in what is probably the most important contribution to the Army's efficiency, and we must remember that these are the very people who are most likely to be attracted by the greater rewards in civil life.
I agree most strongly with the Minister in what he said about the very numerous tasks which the Army has to fulfil—training the National Service men, find-

ing the backbone for overseas garrisons, helping the Territorial Army and keeping some formations in readiness for emergency. The right hon. Gentleman did not point out that, in its present condition, the Regular Army is undergoing great strain and that the situation is very tight indeed. If we continue with this period of strain, where the situation provides no slack at all, it results in constant irritations right through the Army.
Let me give an example. Suppose there is a unit in Gibraltar or further East—it does not matter where—which is hoping to be relieved and come back to this country. There may be a disturbance, say, in Malaya, and troops have to be rushed there. The people who should have relieved the troops sent to Malaya are not available for that purpose, the whole programme is upset, everybody complains that they are not going to get the leave they expected, and there is constant irritation. All that results from having no "slack." It makes countless troubles and difficulties. The only way to make that situation less tight is by stimulating voluntary recruitment. Until we do so we shall continue to have difficulties with the Regular Army.
The second point on which I want to touch in this respect concerns the National Service men during their part-time service with the volunteer element in the Territorial Army. We have a target of 150,000 men volunteers, I understand, and at present we have succeeded in recruiting 70,000. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the House have done all they could to help the right hon. Gentleman in this respect, and it is my fear lest, so close to a war and after all that has happened, we may be asking too much by hoping to handle it almost entirely on the voluntary system. I know that many who are closely concerned with the Territorial Army are very worried about this matter. No other country that has introduced conscription has ever done it on this system. Maybe we can do it, but I believe that, when the time comes, the volunteer element of the Territorial Army may need a much larger slice of the Regular Army's help, and, if that is required, it will strengthen our argument that we must stimulate still further voluntary recruiting for the Regular Army.
The burden of my remarks so far has been to show that the Army as a whole


is out of balance. We have this large number of National Service men and a comparatively small number who have been voluntarily recruited. Before I pass on to recommendations for readjusting our plans, I should like to touch on some of the reasons to which we attribute the disappointing results of the voluntary recruiting campaign. The first is pay. There has been a good deal of difference of opinion about this matter, and many right hon. Gentlemen have said that pay is not the whole question. Of course, it is not, and we appreciate that, but at the present time, a very great deal of genuine hardship is being caused in the Army because of under-payment. It is constantly coming to the notice of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have heard some hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we on this side are worried only about the officers. That is a most unfair criticism, but to those who make it I say that the officers are a vital element in the Army, and if the officers are bad the Army will be bad. To get a good Army we must have and pay for good officers.
At present, many good married officers not above the rank of captain or major, and who have no private means, are in debt, not from extravagance, but because it is practically impossible to avoid it. That is a serious state of affairs, and it was terribly unwise that the Treasury and the War Office should have made that "phoney" announcement about better allowances, when, in fact, owing to taxation they were lower than before the war. The recent much-heralded pay increases only created great disappointment and in no way faced up to the real problem.
My second point concerns conditions of service. The right hon. Gentleman started off by mentioning this, but he never told us in what respect he was going to alter the conditions of service. He mentioned it as a problem, but offered no solution. My criticism of conditions of service today is that if he really thinks it necessary to have a Regular short-service Army, he will find it hard to stimulate voluntary recruiting. May I draw his attention to a poster issued by the War Office which stated "Join the Regular Army and Prepare Yourself for a Better Life in Future." I do not know who was the propagandist who designed it, but it hardly seems to me likely to succeed. The explanation below the

poster was that younger men who join the Army would get first-class technical instruction in their trade and that a man could then go straight to his own trade. But does the right hon. Gentleman think that a young man is going to start five years late in civil life and take the chance that he might not get the instruction in his particular trade? The way to do it would be to invite young men to join the Army and to tell them that, if they do not like it, they can go, but that if they do like it and care to stay they will be given a career and then a job. We might thus get 21 years' service out of these young men, and I believe that we could well afford to guarantee jobs to men of 21 years' and exemplary character, without spending an immense amount on recruiting. Thus only can we overcome the bugbear behind this particular matter.
My last remarks about recruiting concern the question of accommodation, and there I think the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves are in complete accord. I would merely say this about accommodation. Married quarters are very short and are of vital importance. I wonder if hon. Members realise what is happening when a man in Edinburgh is selected as a replacement for a job, say, in Colchester. The man in Edinburgh is not willing to give up his married quarters there when he has no certainty that similar accommodation is available for him at Colchester, his fears are justified but he gets turned out by his relief being married. This sort of occurrence is one of the biggest difficulties at the present time, and I would like to see some adequate steps taken to meet the situation right away. Could not some long-term plan be put in hand? We are all in agreement on this; but the uncertainty of year to year planning is a disadvantage, and would not great strength be gained by an agreed plan for five years to put this right? Furthermore, I understand that the War Office has to handle this matter through the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Shinwell: Half.

Brigadier Head: The Royal Air Force have done better and they have nothing to do with the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? Could he


tell me how these married quarters are to be built when the building workers are being called up into the Army?

Brigadier Head: The answer to that is that they are not. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have considered getting a plan ready, so that, whatever happens politically, whether we turn him out or not, it would be possible to go on with the plan. It seems to me that long-term plans in this direction would be very effective and worthy of consideration. The burden of everything I have said so far is that, from the domestic point of view, the Army itself needs readjustment and much can be done in the stimulation of voluntary recruiting by doing away with these unpopular things.
There is one other factor which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned and that concerns external considerations. Western Union is a new commitment. I do not want to go into that question, but I do say to the Minister that Western Europe is interested primarily in the defence of Western Europe, and that its defence is going to be settled in the first few weeks or months of a war. Western Europe is interested in a high state of preparedness. I believe that to be a most important consideration, and I believe that the steps that we are advocating would ensure a more rapid progress towards its recovery. We are now fighting a cold war, and it will go on. If we lose then there will never be a hot war; we shall all be under Moscow.
This continuing cold war will mean considerable and continued attempts to stir up civil unrest in all areas of strategic sensitivity to us or our Colonial possessions. The motto for such a situation is "a stitch in time saves nine," and the sooner we show that we have adequate force, the sooner we shall probably stop that threat. If we can show at an early stage that we have sufficient force, we may well avoid situations which, later, might require three or four times as many troops to handle them. The best antidote to the cold war is to have sufficient troops ready in a high state of preparedness.
My last point on these external considerations is the necessity of linking up these problems of defence with the

problem of our own economic recovery. It is no good asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for so much money if we thereby ruin our economic recovery, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate that the suggested stimulants to voluntary recruiting would cost a lot of money. I suggest that we have got to give back to the Treasury adequate compensation in terms of National Service. We have, therefore, to give that money back by decreasing either the period of service or the numbers of men called up. I do not know which would be the better method, but the Treasury have got to have it back.
That is the general outline of what we believe is wrong. I should like at the end of my remarks to make some concrete suggestions as to what should be done so that voluntary recruitment could be stimulated. First of all, with regard to pay, I suggest that, taking the 1946 code on which some elements are already up 10 per cent., there should be an overall increase of 25 per cent. It would not cost such a desperate amount of money if confined to the Regular Army and if we did not have to put up to the full the pay of those already receiving the 10 per cent. My right hon. Friend, a most eminent banker, has worked it out many times, and makes it a round sum of £15 million. That is not a hopeless sum if we consider what we should get back by way of manpower and service to the country. We think that the conditions of service should be altered so that a man of good conduct can expect to be retained for 21 year's service. I have already touched on accommodation, and I suggest a long-term plan and concentration on married quarters. I would accompany all these improvements with a really good propaganda campaign, not with posters about a better life, and I would put the ceiling of the Regular Army right up to about say 300,000.
But we have got to give something back because that will cost a lot of money, and I do not see anyone getting away with that with the Treasury unless we do so. There are certain immediate economies which could be made. I think that the annual intake of the Army is at present dictated far more by a desire to retain the universal principle of National Service than by the requirements of the Army. We could, I think, immediately cut it


very considerably. Secondly—and the step I have just advocated would decrease the Reserve—I would have an immediate compulsion registration of Class Z Reservists. Let the right hon. Gentleman own up to the fact that his appeal for voluntary registration in the Class Z Reserve has been a howling flop. One could see that through his words, although he is not entirely a novice at trying to conceal these things.
As far as other economies are concerned—and this, I am glad was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—much could be done by employing civilians in barracks. Here would be an opportunity for the good conduct 21-year man. There are lots of people who like the sound of the bugle, to be near the canteen, and to live in a military atmosphere. I believe that, after 21 year's service, if such men were given some chores to do in the barracks they would be quite happy as civilian employees. I have a further suggestion regarding civilians. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that before the war there was a supplementary reserve unit of the Post Office composed of postal workers whose job in war was almost identical to their job in peace time. They did very little training but when the balloon went up they put on khaki, and there they were. Today, scientific inventions and technical advances mean that many technical military duties and units approximate closely to civilian employment and organisation. Cannot we extend that principle further? Cannot people who in civilian life have to do with say radar be formed into a reserve unit of the Ack-Ack, and cannot people be formed into other specialist and technical reserve units without going through all this business of call-up and training? I should have thought that was a line in which much could be done.

Colonel Dower: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that in many cases, if these people were trained, we would not be able to call on them in the event of a real state of emergency because they would all be in reserved jobs? It would be extremely difficult.

Brigadier Head: I am assuming that when the unit was formed it would be decided who should be retained in

reserved occupations. If we retained all the men making radar sets, there would be no one to use them.
Lastly, I wish to make one remark about what we must give back. If we take all this to stimulate voluntary recruitment, we must give something back either in terms of manpower or in the period of service. What we give back would amount in terms of money—if we translate manpower into money—to something which would, I believe, cover the whole of the cost of this scheme. It would mean that we would free our Regular Force to train itself and produce something that could fight. I believe that two men recruited to the Regular Forces would release at least three National Service men. Those three National Service men would be taken out of the cadres provided by the Regular Army by which means we should again be lightening the impact on the cadres. There is always a reason for doing nothing, but I believe that, at the present time, there is every reason for taking drastic action. I do not think that we have all the time in the world to play with, and I believe that our future prospects under the present scheme are very dim. I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to re-examine all this as a matter of urgency.
Not long ago I went down to a command and gave a lecture to some officers and N.C.O.s—not about politics, but about planning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was a different sort of planning from that of hon. Members opposite. After the lecture, I was driven to the station by a private soldier. He said, "The Army is not too hot just now." I said "No," non-commitally and full of tact. He said, "Do you think we will have the slightest chance of winning the next war if there is one?" I said, rather pompously, I dare say, "We can anyhow be sure of one thing, and that is that the Army will improve a lot during the course of the war." He paused and then he said, "Why does not someone tell all these Shinwells and Alexanders that it would be much better if they gave us a chance to improve during peace time, and then there might never be any war." I have told the right hon. Gentleman my views and I can add no better advice than that given to me by this humble private soldier.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I feel sure that the concluding remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) about his experience with the private soldier refer to something which has not been entirely overlooked by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War. After listening to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today, I do not think that he gave the impression that he has overlooked such matters as that about which the private soldier spoke to the hon. and gallant Member. I believe it will be admitted, even by his critics, that in his speech my right hon. Friend gave the impression that both he and those who work with him at the War Office and elsewhere understand the problem and are trying to tackle it. There may be differences of opinion as to whether they are doing it successfully, but I do not think they have overlooked the real problem.
With the general remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite I am mostly in agreement. I only hope that the Debate will proceed on these well-informed and moderately reasonable lines because then my right hon. Friend, or whoever is going to answer for the Government, will have an easy task. It may be, of course, that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will introduce a little more bellicosity when he comes to speak, but if his remarks are concerned with those tangible matters to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman addressed himself, then—

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton rose—

Mr. Bellenger: I will give way in a moment.

Earl Winterton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to give way. It is a strange thing, but there is a connection between bellicosity and war, even if it is not apparent to the Front Bench.

Mr. Bellenger: I wish the noble Lord would allow me to finish my sentence before he interrupts. I was going on to say that perhaps there might be a little more bellicosity from the Front Bench. I hope it is not so, but previous indica-

tions do not lead me to believe that we shall get through this Debate in the atmosphere in which the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton made his speech.
I wish to confine my remarks to matters which I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will consider constructive and helpful. If ever there is a subject in this House that could and should be debated without heat and animosity, it is National Defence. I know the difficulty under our present party system of everybody saying what he has to say in a manner of sweet reasonableness, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will take what I have to say in that way. He was quite right when he talked about the difficulties of the transition period from war to peace. Looking back, as we must, to what happened after the first war, because we can only learn by our mistakes—in fact, I think it was Napoleon who said that the greatest general made mistakes—I am bound to say, and hon. Members are bound to admit, that the transition from war to peace after the last war has taken place reasonably smoothly, and without too much damage to the Army. The House will know that after the First World War, the Army practically disintegrated, and those were the days when it was easier to recruit Regular soldiers than it is today.
I will refer to one passage in my right hon. Friend's memorandum which accompanies these Estimates and gives an illustration of what I am saying. The Army, in addition to its other tasks, took on some which were really not within its province. The resettlement of the Polish troops who fought so valiantly for this and their own country was one of them. That is something which is often criticised by certain hon. Members. If ever the Army has shown that it is willing to resettle those soldiers who fight its battles, I think there is an illustration of it in the way in which these foreign troops have been settled in an alien land.
I now want to say something about equipment. I was a little disturbed—I do not know the real significance of it—at what my right hon. Friend said about the handing over of part of our reserve equipment to the nations forming Western Union. Those of us who have had anything to do with the post-war Army will know that it has distributed


quite a lot of its war stocks to allies, associates, or friendly democratic countries in order to enable them to build up some system of defence, not only for themselves, but for Europe. I should have liked my right hon. Friend to talk a little more about that subject without, of course, breaking security rules, in order to indicate whether our reserves of equipment are as good as he might wish them to be from the point of view of modern warfare, and to say that they will not be depleted to the point where the British Army may find itself, if Regular recruiting is successful, in a comparatively poor position as regards modern equipment. I want to confine my remarks within the shortest space of time possible.
I shall deal next with training. My right hon. Friend is quite right when he says that hitherto, due to a large extent to the transitional period, the training of the British Army has been conducted mainly on a unit basis and up to brigade level. I was very pleased to hear him say that this year we are to have divisional exercises in B.A.O.R., because in Germany at the present moment there is a training ground such as we shall never have in this country. I often wonder how long it will be possible for the British Army to train in Germany in all its specialised training, artillery, tanks and so forth—to train in an area 60 miles square which is cleared of civilians as only Germans can clear an area. The Germans made a training ground in which their armies were trained to the pitch of perfection, as our troops experienced in combat against them during the war. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend is able to arrange some divisional training in Germany this year on any considerable scale—and he has a large number of troops there—he will have done something to reply to the criticisms, ill-informed and otherwise, which are often advanced against the War Office both from the benches opposite and outside this House.
I must also say to my right hon. Friend—and I hope he will take this in good part—that I thought it was a little ingenuous, in discussing the number of divisions fit for training or operations, to make a mathematical problem by dividing the number of troops on paper by the number of troops required to form

a division with its supporting services. I think, on reflection, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that that is really not a correct assessment of this problem. Nevertheless, let me remind hon. Members opposite, when they are so ready with their criticisms, that in 1914. when the whole purpose of the British Army was to provide a British Expeditionary Force, only six divisions were offered in the earlier days of the war to France, our ally, and that in the last war no more than four divisions were available for the British Expeditionary Force in an operationally fit state. I am not at all sure that even those four divisions were able, in relation to all arms, to go into battle properly equipped and ready to fight the enemy.
There is no doubt that, emerging from this Debate as it has proceeded so far, and as I imagine it will proceed, the dominant point is the question of recruiting for the Regular Army. I am sure my right hon. Friend is fully cognisant of the necessity of recruiting a Regular Army, and indeed he has stated on more than one occasion—although I wish that he would state it in terms which I should like, namely the number of men to whom he is appealing to form the Regular Army. The recruiting campaign so far has not been a success. I do not say that it has been a failure. If hon. Members were to refer to figures of recruiting in the inter-war years between 1918 and 1939, they would find that, on the whole, since this war, and with full and well-paid employment outside, the Regular Army of all the three Services—for the moment I am excluding the Navy because they have a different type of recruit—has done very well indeed.
I do not want to set one Service Department against the other, although I think a little competition is healthy, but I go so far as to say that I believe the Army has done much better than the Air Force, although during the war the Royal Air Force were able to skim off the cream of the recruits and the Army was quite often at a disadvantage, so far as National Service men were concerned, by comparison with the Royal Air Force, which in those days seemed to be a popular Service. On the whole, I think the Army has done quite a lot to


popularise itself amongst that very small section of the community which wants to join it.
Nevertheless, I urge that more should be done, and the only question is, what can be done? I think this is a matter on which all parties in this House have to agree and have to go actively into battle to find the recruits. By all means let us make our proposals to the Government for improving conditions, pay, housing and so forth in the Army, although very often in this House I have differed from the point of view which has been put by hon. Members opposite in the emphasis they place upon pay. I think that in the junior ranks, at any rate, the pay has been brought up to a comparable level with that in civil life. If we take the junior officers and compare them with their equivalent in civilian life, in the professional ranks, I do not think they are doing so badly. By comparison with the £400 to £500 a year, which is the average salary amongst men of that age in civilian life, the Army has quite a lot to show.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton that, in relation to many of what one might call the accessories or the amenities of Service life, the Service individual, both officer and other rank, who is married is at a considerable disadvantage by comparison with the civilian. In the matter of housing the Service officer or other rank is not able to pursue his inquiries for housing accommodation with even a chance of success because all too often he does not know how long he will stay in the place where he may for the moment be quartered.
There are other disadvantages, and there is one at which my right hon. Friend might look. When I was Secretary of State for War we considered these matters in detail, but I think the situation has changed. I do not think the rent allowance for married officers is enough in relation to the rents charged for civilian accommodation. Possibly the point put by the hon. and gallant Member about pay might be met in this respect by the Government without great cost or without breaking a principle because there is a principle involved in the matter of pay. It is the policy of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, accepted by this House, to try to hold wages and prices stable and once that principle is broken by any large-scale increases we may very well be close to the spiral of inflation. Perhaps in the question of allowances and similar matters the Government might do more than they have done hitherto. Indeed, I rather think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has more than once agreed to look into this matter and see whether he can correct what I might, perhaps, call the anomalies.
I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton that 300,000 should be the target for the Regular Army. I do not believe, first of all, that we shall get them; secondly, I do not believe it is absolutely necessary; and thirdly, unless we had war-time conditions it would perhaps be too onerous a burden for this country to bear, not only in the cost but also in the number it would take away permanently from the civil economy. I have said in this House more than once that I think 250,000 should be the ceiling for the Regular Army and if we can get 250,000 comparatively long-service officers and other ranks in the Regular Army I believe we shall have gone a long way—I do not know what my right hon. Friend would say—to reaching the point he seemed to be trying to aim at of reducing the period of conscription and reducing, perhaps, even the number of the National Service intake.
Of course, I know how difficult it is to compress a Minister's remarks on this occasion into a reasonable space of time, but in connection with recruiting I should have liked a little more information as to what is happening about the recruitment of Gurkhas and the Colonial troops. We had a very valuable asset in the Indian Army which we have now lost. Although perhaps some of the Colonial troops are not to be compared with some of the excellent troops of which the Indian Army was composed, nevertheless, I think a lot could be done towards forming some sort of local army which might be very valuable if trouble should break out in those parts. It has been agreed to recruit Gurkhas, both by the War Office and the local potentate out there and, also, I believe, by the Indian Government. I should imagine that my right hon. Friend has been able to recruit a fair number


of these excellent fighting troops, but, knowing what was in the mind of our staff as to the numbers which should be recruited, I want to ask him how near he has got to that target. I do not believe that information would be a breach of security.

Colonel Dower: May I intervene to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is recommending that Gurkhas should be recruited for the purpose of garrisons in other parts of the Empire?

Mr. Bellenger: I believe that is the purpose of recruiting these troops. Obviously, it is not for retaining them in India or Pakistan.
Turning now to housing, I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the efforts which he or his Department intend to make for better housing and more adequate housing for officers and other ranks, but I warn him that, like his T.E.W.T.—tactical exercises without troops—figures on paper do not always represent the accomplished fact. My experience while at the War Office, and I was there for two years, was that we got the money fairly easy but we did not get the houses. Whether or not that is the fault of the Ministry of Works, who are the main builders for the Army, I do not know, but I think in this country we ought to claim from the Minister of Health, who is the Minister mainly responsible for housing in this country, a certain proportion of houses for the Services, and particularly for the Army; after all, they are houses in England, and what does it matter whether they are occupied by civilians or by soldiers and their families? They are all part of the community.
Of course, a lot needs to be done overseas, but I believe we are attempting to deal with that. I think much more could be done to provide houses in this country. If it comes to a local policeman or a local sanitary inspector, the local authority provides him with a house, and more than once we see in the Debates which take place in local councils arguments as to whether the sanitary inspector or one of the local government officials should have a house before Mrs. Brown or Mrs. Robinson who are on the waiting list. If the defence Forces are a necessity for this country, they should be housed as

adequately as the civilian forces, police or otherwise.
Finally, I agree entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton in his plea for long-term planning. The terrible commentary on our pre-war Services problem was that there was very little long-term planning. After the 1918 war, because of that ten-year rule, the Services were the shuttlecock of successive Governments and successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, but I believe—and I speak with practical experience—that in this Government at any rate Chancellors of the Exchequer have recognised the necessity for properly balanced fighting Forces in order that, if aggression should rear its head, we should stand a sporting chance. If my right hon. Friend is at the War Office next year, I think he should give us a little more information on his long-term plan.
Long-term planning, I believe, exists at the War Office. The only thing is that owing sometimes to constant changes in personnel at the War Office, it may get a little out of perspective in the mind of the Cabinet. Nevertheless, long-term planning is the only way to build up a substantial Regular Army, equipment and all the rest of it about which my right hon. Friend has spoken today. He knows that I am not given to distributing bouquets to anybody in this House, but I say to him that, listening to his speech today, I was impressed by the energy and virility which he put into it. Those who understand the problem feel, I am sure, that he is attempting to solve it.

5.31 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: On many matters which have been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) I am in complete agreement, and I am very much indeed in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) on nearly every point he made.
One matter has not been specifically mentioned in the Debate today, and that is the actual amount which we are asked to vote. It is practically the same amount as last year, in the neighbourhood of £305 million, and high though that is, it is not the amount of money which we are asked to vote which we are criticising today. We are asking the question whether in fact we are getting


value for that money. The numbers provided for are large, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State suggested that, if we wanted to know the number of divisions or formations which might be raised from those large numbers, all we had to do was to take pencil and paper and make a calculation. I cannot imagine anything more unsound; I would almost venture to say—I hope that it will not be regarded as an abusive term—that I have seldom heard a more puerile statement.
It is not very large numbers that we want; it is not even so many divisions composed of those numbers. What we want is a number of divisions or formations, whatever may be decided on—composed of organised, trained men fit for service. The numbers which we are told are available are in all stages of training, from the youngest recruit to the trained soldier, and merely to divide those by a certain number to arrive at the number of divisions which may be available would be a waste of time and give a false impression to people who may be ignorant on the matter. One cannot help wondering whether the present system can ever provide the trained men ready for service that we must have.
We want to know whether in fact we have any real plan for providing the operational units and formations—I say "operational" advisedly, because a collection of units used merely for training purposes is definitely not useful—and whether we have any plan for their expansion on mobilisation. Paragraph 30 of the memorandum on the Army, which deals with training, refers to the system adopted in 1948 of training all recruits in arms basic training units, and then in the units of the active Army with which they will serve. We should be interested to know what are these arms basic training units? Is it not a fact that they are nominally units of the active Army? The Secretary of State, in answer to a Question which I put to him yesterday, said that there were 19 of these nominal units of the active Army which were used for training purposes.
How are these units composed? Are they not composed of a few instructors, a skeleton of other ranks and a lot of recruits in various stages of training, or in some cases of a number of N.C.Os.

drawn from all parts of the Army? Surely it would be better to reconstitute some of the units which are in abeyance and to make them recruit training units or N.C.O. training units, as the case may be, and only transfer the recruits from them to active units when they have been fully trained, and when these active units will consequently be more than units in name.
When they go to the units of the active Army in which they are to serve, how long do they stay in them? Are they not being constantly transferred, and how often are the units to which they go the regiments to which they belong or to which they conceive they belong. Is not the infantry group system as it is now being worked, destructive of regimental and county esprit de corps which is of such tremendous value in the British Army? At present there are very few units with a complement of trained personnel and fit for service, and fewer still which have had training as units. I was glad to hear, as I am sure other hon. Members were glad to hear, that in the Rhine Army there are to be definite exercises with troops this year, because I think that training with troops has been conspicuous by its absence for some time past.
What is the number of Regulars aimed at by the Secretary of State? We have heard various numbers suggested-250,000, and 300,000, as was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton. What is the number that the Secretary of State is aiming at? We have never been told. Whatever it may be, I think that it must be agreed that we are seriously short of that number both in officers and other ranks, and unless we have adequate numbers of trained Regulars the whole of this scheme must fail.
Can it be wondered at that there is a shortage when there is a great decrease in the Army's pre-war attractions—and some people forget that the Army had very considerable pre-war attractions. On the whole, contrary to what has been said to-day, the Army was not too badly housed, and the old permanent barracks had a very fair allowance of married quarters. Many of these have been vacated and are now used for other purposes, while the troops are living in hutments, and so forth; but there is a decrease in the pre-war attractions of the Army.
Nowadays, no one and no unit can be sure of staying in one place for more than a short time. There is a very high proportion of the Army serving abroad, and not serving in the old established stations, some of which were good ones, but serving in new stations, and very often under uncomfortable and inconvenient conditions. Then there are a large number of those at home living in hutments or temporary quarters, and married officers and other ranks at home are very often either badly accommodated, or sometimes have no accommodation at all.
I heard of a case the other day of a cavalry regiment of the Armoured Corps stationed in the North and in a hutment camp, built, of course, since the War, and its married people were accommodated—such of them as had married quarters—in a town some 20 miles away. Every afternoon, at a time when married warrant officers and N.C.O.s might be wanted in the camp, not so much for duty as to be among the men to see what was going on and to help with the life of the regiment, they were all paraded to go off to their married quarters in this town 20 miles away. Similarly, at an uncomfortably early hour in the morning, these men were collected and brought back to the camp. That is not comfort, and it is not reasonable. In these hutment camps, why should not pre-fabricated houses be provided? They would be at least as permanent as the hutments in which the troops are living, and it is perfectly possible to make married people comfortable in them.
Then there is the question of pay and allowances of which we have heard today. I was very disappointed to hear the Secretary of State say that there was no question at present of raising the pay and allowances, but they have nothing like kept pace with the rise in the cost of living, or, if you like to put it in another way, in the fall in the value of money, which has been so remarkable. As regards allowances, there is the iniquitous system of deduction of Income Tax from allowances. In former days, allowances were not great and not always sufficient to provide what they were provided for—lodgings, or whatever it may be—but at least the man or officer got the money, and could use it for the purpose for which it was intended; but now he has Income

Tax deducted from it, which results very often in the case of officers drawing allowances that they are considerably worse off under the present system, the allowance being quite inadequate for the purpose for which it was given.
It is the old story of the Treasury giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It is a very sore point with the Army and the Navy, and it has been a sore point in all the Services ever since I can remember, and that is a long time. There is no gratitude on the part of the country and certainly none on the part of the Treasury to those who serve it in peace and in war, and who undergo hardship and danger in their country's service. There is no gratitude to them; there is only a cold calculation of what is the very least that can be done for them. In calculating a single officer's emoluments, his lodgings, light, fuel, etc., are taken into consideration, but his lodging may be, and very often is in war time, on the cold bare ground. Sometimes it is so during exercises in peace time, and his light may not be anything at all but the light from the moon; but he does not get now what he used to get when in camp, on service, or in bivouac, and that is field allowance to make up for it.
Very great improvement must be made in pay and allowances for the Regulars if the necessary numbers are to be obtained, and. I would suggest, not only obtained but maintained. I suggest that the allowances ought to be free of Income Tax, so as to leave the full amount free for lodgings or for whatever it is given. Steps should be taken for adjustment of the rates of retired pay and pensions, and particularly the restoration to those who have not had any return of the 91½ per cent. deducted under the Royal Warrant of 1919 from their retired pay. It was deducted on account of the alleged fall in the cost of living, and it was promised in the Warrant that it should rise and fall as the cost of living rose or fell. Well, the cost of living rose again, but it was never restored. It was restored to those drawing the lower scales by the two Pension Increase Acts, but it was not restored to those on the higher scales, which are not very high but only a matter of some £700 a year and upwards. It was a clear breach of faith on the part of the Treasury that that 91½ per cent. was not


restored in all cases. Such adjustments and restorations would give confidence to those serving.
Lastly, and I entirely agree here with my hon. and gallant Friend, it is absolutely necessary for men with good Army records to be guaranteed good employment by the Government when they finish their time. I say "good men" advisedly, because all men are not equally good. Perhaps it is one of the good points of nationalisation that it should be possible for the Government to employ ex-Service men in these industries. I also suggest that good Army service should count for pension purposes in such Government services as the police and the Post Office. If we want to get Regular soldiers, we should give them a decent dress for ceremonial occasions and for walking out purposes. I will not go into that in detail; but there should be a decent dress for all soldiers. Everyone has a best suit except the soldier, who has to live in his working suit all day and very often sleep in it at night. When a Question was asked the other day about recruiting, I reminded the Secretary of State of what happened in 1921. From the moment that full dress was restored in that year to the Household Troops in London there was no looking back in their recruiting, which had by no means been satisfactory up to that time.
In the statement on Defence, we are told that the Western European Commanders-in-Chief Committee is studying the problem of defence in Western Europe. Our example will be of the utmost importance in this connection. The Secretary of State told us that we were providing, and I was very glad to hear it, up to date equipment in considerable quantities to the Western European powers. But more than that is required if we are to take our part in Western European defence. Have we adequate organised forces to offer towards that defence, bearing in mind that our aid—and the Secretary of State appeared to throw cold water on the idea that we ought to have something in the nature of an expeditionary force—must be immediate if it is to be of any use?
Have we any plans for Empire co-operation in matters of defence? Is not the C.I.G.S. still the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and does he function as

such? Has he submitted plans for cooperation with Empire troops, both Dominion and Colonial? As we know, the Empire Forces rendered enormous assistance during the war, but unless I am mistaken there was no undertaking in advance by any of the countries as to the precise amount of assistance which could be counted on in each case. Surely we should aim at getting agreements in advance under which the minimum amount of aid to be rendered is laid down in each case. I think we have a right to know that.
Has the situation arising from the loss of the Indian Army been taken into consideration? If it has not been taken into consideration, it certainly should have been? That has been a tremendous loss, which has upset the whole balance of our power in the Middle and Far East. We have a Gurkha division, and I am delighted that we have been able to save something out of the wreck. Some agreement might be made, at any rate with Pakistan. What about West African troops, which were very valuable indeed during the last war and displayed fighting qualities that surprised a great many people? Are we taking them into consideration? Is there to be any development of these troops?
It is obvious, if we are to increase the Regular troops, that an examination must be made into administrative duties. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that although a great many administrative duties are necessary, an examination is being made into these duties. It is necessary that an examination should be made into staffs, especially administrative staffs, and that means not only officers, but clerks, orderlies, drivers and all the hangers on. There should be an examination of all non-combatant and semi-combatant services, departments and individuals. I would merely mention, as I did on a previous occasion, certain non-combatant or semi-combatant corps for examination and consideration, such as the Pioneer Corps, the Education Corps, the Catering Corps, the R.E.M.E., R.A.O.C. and R.A.S.C.
I was glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that some of these might be recruited on a militia or Territorial basis. That would particularly apply in the case of the Pioneer Corps, which is a new corps. The original companies in France at the beginning of the


last war were very largely formed from roadmen in the employment of the county councils. They were mostly old soldiers who were formed quickly into companies. The same sort of thing could be done again. They are not highly trained troops, but men who work on the roads and in other capacities. Skilled men might well be enlisted in R.E.M.E., the R.A.O.C. and similar corps. Many details would have to be worked out, but the scheme is a possibility.
There is a considerable item in the Estimates for Press officers. From the Chief Press Officer downwards, can it be said that they add to the efficiency and fighting value of the Army?

Mr. W. R. Williams: No.

Sir G. Jeffreys: There is a very large item for civilian labour. I suggest that the civilian labour might be very largely decreased and transferred to civilian purposes. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say what some of us have been urging for a long time, and that is that welfare must be the primary concern of commanding officers. He said that as if it were a new idea. The welfare of the Army was first-class before the war, and welfare has always been the concern of the commanding officer and officers of the unit. A good unit has very good welfare services indeed. There ought to be no specially paid welfare personnel. I was very glad to see in the memorandum that much use is being made of the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association and other similar bodies. These are admirable institutions that have done excellent work in the past, and they will certainly do excellent work again.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have always gone on the principle, possibly due to the Treasury, of giving improvements in conditions a little at a time, the assumption being, I suppose, that a little lasts longer that way. They had better make up their minds that they have to improve the conditions of the Territorial Army, and that the biggest thing they have to face up to is this question of leave for camp. It is absolutely necessary that both employers and employees should know exactly where they stand about that. Because some patriotic or prosperous firms, like

the big brewers, pay their employees the difference between their wages and earnings in the Army when they go to camp, it must not be imagined that the smaller employers can do the same, because they cannot.
If only the right hon. Gentleman would agree to make two conditions, that attendance at camp is made compulsory on both the men and the employers and that any difference in pay shall be made up by the Government or by the taxpayer, as it is in the case of Government employees who go to camp, we shall get the recruits. It is all very well for the Government to say that they are setting a good example by letting their employees go to camp and have their pay made up, but it is being done at the expense of the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer has to pay for that, he might just as well pay in the case of those in private employment. If the right hon. Gentleman does not face up to this question, and he has always skated round it, he will never get the recruits he wants. I hope that these points, and not least the last one I have mentioned, will be given attention by the right hon. Gentleman.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I doubt whether a Territorial camp in which the men drew different rates of pay according to their civilian employment would be a very happy one. I will not go into that question because there are other points I should like to pursue. I want to take the opportunity of thanking the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) for a most admirable contribution to this Debate. He put, quite admirably, nearly every point we in the Services group of this party have been pressing for during the past three years. I sincerely hope, now that we have so eminent a recruit to our ranks, the Government will pay more attention to our suggestions. I should particularly like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on his remarks about the disadvantages of National Service. It is the first glimmering we have had from the Opposition that we need to reduce National Service as soon as we can and indeed, to get rid of it altogether as soon as possible.
There were only two points on which I disagreed with him. The figure of 300,000 for the permanent army is rather


large. We have always gone on the basis of 250,000. Secondly, although I entirely agree about the need for increasing the remuneration generally of the Regular forces in order to get sufficient Regular recruits, and not to have to rely on the very inefficient way of doing it through National Service men, I do not know that an increase of pay on the basis of 25 per cent. is the best way of doing it. With those reservations, I should like to associate myself with everything he has said. Indeed, he having said so much for me enables me to concentrate in my speech upon one particular aspect on which he touched and on which I should like to enlarge. I refer to our problem of defence as part of Western Union and of the Atlantic Pact.
The first priority strategic job we have to consider is how to prevent Russia over-running Europe before America can get here. That seems to me to express in the simplest terms our No. 1 priority in the defence field. In a Debate in another place it was suggested that air could do this alone. I do not agree with that. Air alone may prevent another war occurring. The knowledge that on the very day another war commences there are going to be atomic bombs on most of one's largest cities is a very strong inducement not to start a war. That is the inducement which has operated so far, and I only pray that it will go on operating. But once the war is started I do not believe that air can do it alone, although I would agree entirely that it is absolutely essential that we should guarantee and maintain air superiority. I hope that it can be arranged that we will have more American visiting squadrons stationed in Europe, and that air fields for the reception of the American air force will be prepared in advance.
Once there is air superiority advantage can only be taken of it if there is the right kind of force to operate under it. According to the best information that I have been able to get, the Russians have about 30 divisions in Germany—I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton that it is important that we should talk in terms of divisions rather than numbers of men—and of these probably eight are armoured divisions. Behind that the Russians have

a mobilisation strength of some 300 divisions and an eventual strength of 550 divisions. Neither we ourselves nor Western Union can possibly hope to compete with those sort of figures. It would be suicidal to attempt it. It would wreck the economy of the West. Therefore, we want to find other means of meeting that sort of threat. Where one has air superiority, the real advantage is that it is very difficult for the enemy to move about. Their formations can be broken up and their mobility paralysed.
This does not however apply to Russians to quite the same extent as other armies. The Russian soldier is amazingly tough. He can do without what other people cannot do without. The Russians have succeeded in maintaining more dispersal in movement than any other army has succeeded in doing. During the last war they were able to advance almost miraculously in face of the German air superiority. Nevertheless, if we have air superiority, our opponents are under a great disadvantage, and we have a great advantage provided that we are able to move and concentrate rapidly. We can get local superiority, even though overall we may be in great inferiority of numbers. We can concentrate and fight and disperse and concentrate again. A force to take advantage of these conditions must consist of highly trained, highly mechanised, professional troops. Nothing else is any use.
Fundamentally our job will be to fight a rearguard action, to fight a retreat. This always requires far better troops than an advance. It is a far greater test of training. We shall have to give the French time to mobilise behind the Rhine and Belgians and Dutch time to mobilise too. This highly trained, mobile, armoured force will then have to pass through the less mobile French and Benelux infantry and become available as a mass of manoeuvre because, as we saw in 1940, unless there is a mobile mass of manoeuvre behind, an infantry line is useless. It is this highly trained mobile force that Europe lacks today. There can be many opinions about its size, but I suggest it could not do with less than 20 divisions.
What is the position at the moment? There is a tremendous difference between numbers and divisions. I would put it as


a difference of probably about a year. Assuming there has been initial training; assuming the equipment is available; assuming you are not burdened by training recruits; assuming all this it will still take about a year to make a trained division. At the present moment, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the available divisions in Western Europe are about as follows—the French before the war had 30 divisions in the peace-time army expandable to 90; today there are 5 in France and 2 in Africa. Before the war Belgium had 6 divisions expandable to 23; now they have got at most 3 and the Dutch probably about 2. I do not know what our figures are, but I will not go into that. It is very clear that in terms of immediately available divisions there are at this moment very few available.

Mr. Kirkwood: How many are in a division?

Mr. Paget: That depends on different countries, and it depends on whether they are armoured or infantry divisions, but the average figure, including auxiliary divisional troops, would be about 16,000 to 20,000, though it depends on different circumstances. The main reason for this absence of divisions—and until the troops are on a divisional basis they are not available for fighting a war, so that they have to be got into a divisional basis—is the extent to which the Regular and trained troops are immobilised all over Europe training conscripts. This gives emphasis to the wrong priority. As far as the defence of Western Europe is concerned, it seems to me that this conscript idea, which is primarily to provide reserves, is a wrong priority, because it is not much use having reserves after Europe has been over-run.
Further, the reserve problem is not what it used to be, because we have the great American reserves that will come in. America to a very large extent fulfils what used to be the reserve problem. If we can hold the fort there is plenty to come into the fort. Therefore, I feel that emphasis should be• laid on immediate preparedness of an immensely efficient force, rather than on over-concentration through conscription on building reserves. The first priority should be the provision of some 20 super-equipped and trained divisions in Western Europe. Our contribution to that will

probably have to be a fairly high one. The French, Belgians and the Dutch must get their general mobilisation going quicker than we need to. They will have to provide most of the second line. Therefore, we should provide a fairly large proportion of the first line and I venture to suggest that the number should be about eight to ten really first-class professional divisions.

Earl Winterton: This is exactly the point that has concerned many of us on this side of the House, and we have felt, apart from partisan or political feeling, that that should be pressed from all parts of the House upon the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with the only thing that matters in defence today.

Mr. Paget: I am very grateful for that interjection and the assistance that has come, because we have been pressing this for three years.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Both sides have.

Mr. Paget: I do not know that we got the assistance we should have had from other parts of the House in former years.
Home defence is the second priority. By home defence I mean the need for having a widespread army of what might be more or less termed garrison troops, so that any attempt at airborne landings or the establishment of bridgeheads will meet with immediate resistance as will any attempt to expand them. That and that alone is the function of National Service, for which one ought to have conscripts. I have taken the view that six months is quite enough for basic training, and those conscripts should be no burden at all upon the professional army striking force. They should be organised in training battalions officered from the O.T.C. as junior officers with junior N.C.O's. from the Cadet Corps. Colonels, company commanders, adjutants and senior N.C.O's. should be pensioners who have come out of the Regular force.
The training organisation should be separate from, and no longer a burden on, the professional army. When they have done their training, those men should go into the Territorials. They will not be professional troops or troops of manoeuvre but garrison troops able


to provide immediate resistance in the event of a landing. They would also enable the professional army to be built up after the war commences. As to commitments, Germany and Austria should not count as commitments because they are just grand training grounds for the Regular Army. The more the Regular and striking force is in the direction where it will be needed, the better. Trieste and Greece—that is not large.
Then we come to Colonial commitments. I am surprised to find those described as commitments at all. At the end of the war I believe we had between 120,000 and 150,000 African troops, and very good troops they were. Now we are told that internal African security is a commitment. It ought to be exactly the reverse. Africa is an enormous source of unemployed manpower. Indeed I would say that experience in military service has proved the most effective method of education. The African who has served in the Forces is an admirable influence when he gets back to his village; he has learned a lot of things. I urge the Government to look to Africa as the source from which their Colonial commitments will be met. I hope they will really push ahead with creating a Colonial Army.
One further suggestion: I do not quite know what our Middle Eastern bases will be, but for the Middle East the Government should consider seriously the creation of a foreign legion. France did that highly successfully when she suffered from shortage of manpower. We are suffering from a shortage of manpower now, and among Central European people who have come from behind the iron curtain, because they hate it, there is a tremendous potential of fighting men who would have their hearts in the job. I believe it would be a good idea, both for them and for us, if we offered them employment in a foreign legion, and I hope the Government will consider creating one.
One final thing. I believe that all costs today must be translated into man hours because man hours are the real unit of cost. Getting the Army on to a professional basis, creating a Colonial Army, even creating a foreign legion—these are the methods which are the least expensive in man hours, and in reality take

least from the wealth of this country. I do not know how it works out in budgetary figures but man hours are what really matter, for man hours are the real income of this country.

6.18 p.m.

Sir Harvie Watt: I hope the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his interesting excursion into some of the wider matters of defence on which I find myself in almost complete agreement with him. I would rather take a narrower line.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said that he hoped this Debate would concentrate largely on recruitment for the Regular Army. I hope it does more than that, because it is just as important that we should consider the question of recruitment of the Territorial Army. I am profoundly depressed by the present situation, and the speech made this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War did nothing to reassure me. We have to remember that a six months' campaign was started in October to secure the enlistment by the end of March of 150,000 officers and men. We have nearly reached the end of that campaign and there has been something less than half that target reached. That is profoundly disturbing to us all, and we must try to see how we are to get round those difficulties.
In my view, the results are due not to one factor but to many, and the three most important factors are first, what is generally called war weariness. Most men who served in the Forces during the war say, "We have done our bit and we have had enough of it for the time being. We will do it again if we have to, but we will not do it now." They are too busily engaged in making up for those years they spent in the Fighting Services. Another strong factor which is operating, particularly with regard to the Anti-Aircraft units, is the fact that many men and women who served in the Anti-Aircraft units during the war have no certainty that their services then were properly appreciated. The disastrous decision not to grant them the 1939–45 medal is having a marked effect. I remember very well, and most hon. Members will, too, how in 1938–39 the spokesmen of the Government side and, indeed, of the War Office and


all military authorities, said that men and women ought to join the Anti-Aircraft Forces because it was a public service of prime importance. Many were induced to join as volunteers because they felt they were doing a real public service, but as soon as the medals came to be distributed they found that that public service had not been quite so important as they had been led to believe.
I find that the same statements are being made now by the Government and by leaders on my own side who are doing their best to induce recruits into the Anti-Aircraft units. They say that this is a matter of prime importance and of great public service. However we are not getting the results, and very few men and women who served in those units in the war have since rejoined. In a certain brigade I know, a return was taken and it showed only two officers and 20 men in the whole brigade who had served in Ack-Ack units during the war. I think the Minister ought to forget some of the arguments made at that time and make this medal available to those men and women who served in the Anti-Aircraft units during the war.
A third factor which is affecting recruitment to the Territorial Army is undoubtedly conscription. That has affected the volunteers very much, because the 18 and 19 age groups which formed a large part of the Territorial Army before the war are not now joining in view of the National Service they have to do. What effect that National Service will have upon the future of the Territorial Army is not yet certain. I am convinced, however, that if some concessions in service could be given to those age groups, not in respect of the 18 months which they must serve in the Regular Forces, but in their subsequent service in the Territorial Army, it would have a profound affect upon recruiting.
Before dealing with one or two minor suggestions to the Minister, there are two rather broad proposals I will make with regard to the direction and administration of the Territorial Army. First, there ought to he a proper directorate of the Territorial Army at the War Office. That is no novel suggestion. Before the war there was a Director-General of the the Territorial Army with a seat on the Army Council, and he had Territorial advisers. That system worked extremely

well and it ought to be reintroduced and even extended, but we must make sure that the Director of the Territorial Army, or his position, is not used just as a stepping-stone to further promotion. The fact that we have had so many appointments of that kind since the war has had a bad effect upon the Territorials. In making these appointments we ought to have people who know and understand the problems of the Territorial Service. There have been far too many examples of men who did not properly appreciate these difficulties. In General Herbert, the new Director of the Territorial Army, we have a first-class man who knows the T.A. I hope he will be allowed to stay and be up-graded in his job, because that would make a tremendous impression on everyone.
The second broad suggestion I put forward is that I think there ought to be an inquiry into the operation of the Territorial Army Associations. I am not satisfied that, as they exist at present, they are fulfilling the functions they ought to fulfil. There is no doubt that in the old days before the war these associations performed a fine service, but the situation has changed with conscription. And not only with regard to conscription. With a proper directorate at the War Office for the Territorial Army, many things like drill halls, personal equipment, clothing, stores, and so forth, could be issued, not through the Territorial Army Associations, but direct to the Unit. At present personal equipment and clothing are obtained by the Associations on indent from Ordnance and then issued out to the units concerned. Why should not that operation be made in one through a Territorial directorate? It would cut out many of these dual operations and the two channels of command. I found on many occasions that I was passed to an Association through a military channel, and the result was a great deal of "passing the buck" and of frustration on the part of the commanding officer.
Thirdly, with regard to Territorial Army Associations, any inquiry should consider the question of age limits. A great many men now serving on those Territorial Army Associations would undoubtedly have fallen under the recommendations of the Cohen Report. In making these changes, one would get a far more virile and active association—


if one must have an association—and far more active Territorial advice by bringing in more Territorials in as advisers to co-operate with the different formations. I do not think there is any difficulty in that way.
If we could streamline the organisation of the Territorial Army and Associations by having an effective directorate, we could dispel a great deal of that apathy which has affected everyone despite all the addresses and appeals made by our political leaders—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill) whose speech, incidentally, came too late. He should have been the first, or at any rate near the beginning, because no man, whoever he may be, can revive a flop. And that is what this recruiting campaign has been. It would not have been a flop if there had been proper Territorial advice at the top, because, if there had been, that campaign would not have taken place during the winter months.
Past experience has shown that the best periods for recruiting for the Territorial Army have always been from March to camp and for a short period afterwards from camp to October, but that the very worst months for recruiting are October to March. That is the very period in which we have had this great recruiting campaign in the last six months. Publicity and propaganda for the Territorial Army have been quite ridiculous. The publicists do not seem to have had any idea at all as to what the requirements of the Territorial Army were. Again, with Territorial advisers this would have been different. If we had handed out all this publicity with Territorial advice to a first-class business firm, with proved ability to sell any commodity, we would have done a great deal towards killing the apathy towards the Territorial Army.
There are two other minor matters which I should like to mention. The first concerns the bounty. One or two hon. Members have said today that they thought the bounty was approaching the right figure, but I disagree entirely. An approach should be made to the Treasury to bring the bounty up to, at any rate, £15, because that would be comparable to the bounty before the war,

having regard to the value of the £ and the high cost of living. I see no reason why this bounty, whatever figure it is, should not be paid to the officer as well as to the man, for he is just as entitled to it.
And now to my final point. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) spoke about the Territorial Army and the giving by employers of time off with pay for men to attend camp. It is quite unfair on employers, whoever they are, private or nationalised, to expect them to give men time off and to make up their pay at the same time. This is not a private responsibility; it is a national responsibility, and the State should pay for any make-up of pay which is required. It may sound all very well to say that people who provide extra pay for Territorials going to camp are great, patriotic citizens, but it is not their private responsibility. It is ours, and we should accept it. I am quite certain that if some of the suggestions I have made could be considered and implemented by the Secretary of State, they would have a very heartening effect, not only upon recruiting, but upon the Territorial Army as a whole.

6.33 p.m.

Wing-Commander Millington: I am grateful for the opportunity of following the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir H. Watt) because, as has happened before with previous successive speakers, we have a lot in common in our approach, particularly to the question of the Territorial Army. But it would appear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little confused about the status and structure of the Territorial Army. First, if I understood him aright, he says that there should be a properly established and recognised Directorate-General of the Territorial Army, that the rank of the Director-General should be up-graded one rank so that there will be less transience of Director-Generals and more permanence, and that the Director-General himself should have a seat on the Army Council. The hon. and learned Gentleman followed this by saying there were certain faults in the administration of the County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations, and that if we promote and confirm the


establishment of a Director-General it might be possible to by-pass the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations by depriving them of some of their administrative functions.
It seems that the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for two things which are not parallel. A case can be made out—it is the one to which I personally give most weight—for the complete revision of the T.A.F.As. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What is that?"] The Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. If hereafter I refer to them as T.A.F.As., which is common parlance among Territorial soldiers, I hope nobody will object. A case can be made out for the complete abolition of T.A.F.As. as they are at present constituted, because it can be argued that this new post-war military organisation makes, in fact, all three branches of the Army part of the same military organisation—that is, the small Regular contingent, the National Service man and the Territorial soldier, who after this year will in the main be the ex-conscript; these three are part of a citizen Army. All the branches of the administration of each section of that Army should come under the responsible heads of the Departments of the War Office. This is a case that can be argued and upon which, I think, considerable force can be put. But if we promote and establish the department of the Director-General of the Territorial Army on the pre-war basis, it presupposes in my submission, a continuance of the pre-war organisation of the Territorial Army.
I should like to discuss the nature of these county associations, because I believe there is an awful lot wrong with them which is having its effect upon the morale and the rate of recruiting, and also the ultimate function of the Territorial Army as a whole. I have the profoundest respect for the majority of people I know who serve on a county association. They are men of good intention and good will, prepared to give considerable time and energy—and, in many eases, money—in order to keep things going. It is no intention of mine to attack them as individuals. But the hon. and learned Member for Richmond is right in saying that the first criticism of them is that so many of them are so old, and that in trying to raise in a county association questions of modern equip-

ment, strategy and tactics one finds that members who sit in responsible positions really do not know what one is talking about. The Secretary of State ought to examine their constitution from that point of view if he intends to persist with them.
Secondly, there is an aspect which is a little disturbing when one realises the new, completely democratic nature of the whole of our Fighting Forces, and particularly of the Army. These associations were built up in the inter-war years on an entirely different conception of the Army and Territorial Army, but, as they are made up mainly of business men who have the time, money and energy to devote to them, they are often socially completely out of touch with the task of recruiting and the men whom one must interest to get them into the Territorial Army.

Major Legge-Bourke: Rubbish.

Wing-Commander Millington: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "Rubbish." I am very glad to have his attention, but if I had his complete agreement on everything I was saying, I should feel that there was something wrong in my approach to the problem
I believe that now these county associations stand between the desire of the Secretary of State to realise his recruiting target for the T.A. and the realisation of that hope, and that they must be recast on an entirely new basis. The chain of administration must be direct, from the War Office down to the serving unit—or else the personnel of the county association must be changed so that far more weight is given to the word of present commanding officers of Territorial units and the feeling of the association is much more in keeping with the demands of today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have to be very careful and should, perhaps, leave that subject in case I fall into the fatal error of having hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite agreeing with me too much. If the noble Lord, who is mumbling at me, wants to interrupt, I will give way.

Earl Winterton: I said I thought it was rather beneath the dignity of the Debate and of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's war record to say what he has just said. Surely, what we are all trying to do is


to reach agreement in a matter of the highest importance to the State.

Wing-Commander Millington: If the noble Lord's statement and intervention is absolutely a reflection of his view, then I feel that his conduct during the course of my speech and other hon. Members' speeches has not been in complete conformity with it. In fact, all of us come to this House and participate in these Debates from the motives which he expresses, but it often happens that hon. Members who are in disagreement on particular points of view, cannot suppress their disagreement and constantly mumble interruptions. In my opinion, that does not contribute to the dignity of the Debate.
I want to refer to the general line of argument deployed by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The theory upon which he was working is one which I totally reject. That at this stage we should come to this House, not to talk in terms of making general provision for the security of these islands, against a background of doing everything possible politically to make war less and less possible, but to face the specific problem which he has expressed of planning a war which he appears to consider imminent and inescapable, seems to me entirely the wrong approach.

Mr. Paget: I certainly do not regard the war as either imminent or inescapable. All I want to emphasise is that it is the only possible war, and that if we are not prepared to defend ourselves from that, there is no point in having an Army at all and we would be able to go, into the very happy position of universal disarmament. There is no other danger.

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.

Wing-Commander Millington: I am prepared to agree with that view, that the war the nature of which is expressed so tersely and clearly by the hon. and learned Gentleman is the only possible war. But I do not consider that the speech to which we have listened, particularly the phrase of which I complain, helps at all to put off the possibility of that war. In fact, the tendency in these Defence Debates is to exacerbate an already dangerous situation by persistently giving too

much point and emphasis to a possible immediate line-up of military forces.
I wanted to say that, because it would appear, not only from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, but from many speeches made here, that in the very near future we and the other nations of Western Europe are going to be engaged as the bulwark, the front line, in a third, cosmic war. I do not believe that that is an immediate possibility, and I think that we have an urgent duty to do everything we can to dispel the alarm and despondency which exists among all our people at the constant presentation of this as an imminent menace. I recommend my hon. and learned Friend to take his brilliant mind off this functional question of making military forces more and more efficient, and apply it more to the broader political question of making war less and less imminent.

6.45 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Naturally, I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech in detail, beyond saying that I agree with one or two of his points and very much disagree with one or two others, but I think he recognises that that is inevitable.
I wish to apologise to the Minister beforehand and to tell him that I have to go to Scotland tonight and shall not be here when he replies. There is no discourtesy to him but I apologise now because he is present. I should like to emphasise what has already been said and cannot be said too often, that the crux of the whole of this situation is the Regular Army. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir H. Watt) emphasised the need for encouraging recruiting for the Territorial Army and we all agree on that. But however many recruits are obtained for the Territorial Army, unless we have the Regular Army to train them we may as well save the time and expense. I am not speaking as a Regular officer and trying to boost the Regular Army at the expense of the Territorial Army. In case anyone should think that I am doing so, may I point out that I was a Territorial for five years before I became a Regular officer? I was glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend emphasise that


we should have a proper Regular Army for training the mass of National Service men.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), in what I thought a brilliant speech, went into the question of National Service men in considerable detail and suggested what ought to be done about that. I do not propose to go into it in detail, but I feel that having 500,000 men in khaki and yet not having an effective fighting force, is a very unfortunate situation indeed because 500,000 men taken from the country at this time is a large number. The situation is that not only are they lost to industry but the only possible reason for taking them away from industry is that we should have an effective fighting force and we have not that either. Therefore, there is a net loss which we cannot afford at present.
Another point which needs emphasising is that I do not believe that the Territorial element and the National Service element will ever mix in a harmonious whole. It has never been tried by any other country and I do not believe it would be successful here. In the Territorial unit there is what I will call a club element. They have their own social life, they are enthusiastic and keen and represent their neighbourhood wherever it may be. They have their drill hall—I still call it a drill hall and not a T.A. Centre, as everyone will call it a drill hall whatever the right hon. Gentleman proposes—and that is a social centre and a centre of brotherhood which is one of the most essential features in the Territorial Army. To empty into that large quantities of semi-digested National Service men with an element of discontented boredom, is the wrong way to go about the matter.
I believe it was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) who mentioned the universal unpopularity of the group system in the Regular Army. The group system is disliked by every Regiment in the British Army. We have this dreadful system whereby as little as possible is made of emphasis on the "territorial"—I am not now talking of the arm of the Territorial Army as a force but the literal "territorial" Army—for recruitment. In Scotland it is of double importance in recruiting in the Highland and Lowland

areas. It is not enough to say that a man will be in a Highland or Lowland group. Cross postings are going on in the Army today on a most astonishing scale. That may be inevitable under the present set up. To give an example, a short time ago in the Regular battalion of the Black Watch there were 250 serving Regular soldiers and the rest were made up of National Service men. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that training units are only in this country because this is a training unit and is in Germany. There are 250 serving in that Battalion. There are 1,500 Regular soldiers of the Black Watch in Regular service today and only 250 of them are serving with the Black Watch. That is a deplorable state of affairs if we want to encourage recruiting in the Black Watch area.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the hon. and gallant Member regard this as the reason why there was less response in his constituency to the recruiting campaign for the Territorials than in any other place in Scotland? Could he tell us the number who joined the Territorials in his constituency?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to confine my remarks to the Regular Army and cross postings, but the hon. Member will find that recruiting for the Territorial Army in the Black Watch area was very high. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) said that the hon. and gallant Member for Perth had addressed recruiting meetings and that therefore the response in that constituency was the lowest in Scotland. I do not mind the compliment. It is quite nice, but (a) I have not addressed any recruiting meeting and (b) the response was very high.
I beg the Minister to realise the feelings of a large number of Regular soldiers many of whose fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers have served in the Black Watch. I am not saying this in a spirit of boasting because in England, Wales and Northern Ireland no doubt the same could be said. These men believed they would follow their forebears but now only 250 are lucky enough to carry on in the Black Watch. This has a most unfortunate effect on recruiting, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the


Minister that he will look into the matter, because it is important.
I turn to another famous Scottish Regiment which is nearly as famous as the Black Watch, the Royal Scots Greys, one of the greatest Regiments in the whole history of the British Army. It used to be considered the most Scottish of almost any Regiment in the British Army. Today I am told on reliable authority that the number of Scotsmen in the Royal Scots Greys is 13 per cent. More alarming than that is the figure given to show the number of old fellows in that Regiment who are Scotsmen and the number of young men who are not Scotsmen.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is that because there are Scotsmen in English Regiments or insufficient Scotsmen to go round Scottish Regiments?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was coming to that important point. The older warrant officers in the Regiment are 75 per cent. Scotsmen. The next line, sergeants' mess, excluding warrant officers, are 30 per cent. Scotsmen, and the young Regular troops in the Regiment are 20 per cent. Scotsmen, but the National Service men are only 6 per cent. Scotsmen. Quite recently a large number of Scotsmen enlisted in Scotland for the Royal Armoured Corps and were sent to the Inniskilling Dragoons. That is a very great help to the Inniskilling Dragoons I have no doubt, but it is not a very great encouragement to Scotsmen who wished to go into the Royal Armoured Corps that they did not go into the Royal Scots Greys which, after all, is the Royal Armoured Corps Regiment for Scotland. It is a most regrettable state of affairs.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked if it were a fact that there were not enough Scotsmen to fill Scottish Regiments. That is a fact but not so far as the one Scottish Cavalry Regiment is concerned. That could be and always was recruited under its own steam in Scotland most satisfactorily and the percentage of Scotsmen in it was very high indeed. Why should we denationalise the Royal Scots Greys when the Government are so keen on nationalising everything else? I very much hope that the Minister will give his assurance that he will look into the ques-

tion of the recruitment of soldiers in Scotland for the Royal Armoured Corps and will direct that they shall go into the Royal Scots Greys. If there are too many, let the other regiments have the privilege of having the odd Scotsmen who are left out.
I wish to mention a matter I have mentioned in this House before and about which I feel very strongly. That is the question of the Gurkhas. I am not talking of the men of the Gurkha Regiments at the moment but of the situation of British officers of the Gurkha Regiments. I have had correspondence with the Minister and he has very courteously gone into the matter in great detail, but I am still very dissatisfied, as also are the British officers of the Gurkha Regiments, with the terms they have been offered and on which they are expected to serve. I do not wish to take up time in going into detail, but there is the question of British Income Tax and the fact that they have to look after families at home and educate them while they always serve overseas, usually in bad climates. These are points which urgently need alleviation because the situation and feelings of the British officers of the Gurkha Regiments are most unhappy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will look into the matter again. There are not very many of these officers but they are doing a tremendous job and we have great need of them. While I would not say that we want to go on our knees to the Maharajah of Nepal to give us more recruits, we should make these men happy and contented and let them know that they and their families will have a square deal.
I wish to deal with the question of discipline. The memorandum says:
The improvement in discipline throughout the Army noted during 1947 has continued during the past year.
I am very glad to hear it, it had need to. The basis of a good Army is good discipline. I run the risk as usual of being referred to by some of the more lighthearted elements in the Press and elsewhere as Colonel Blimp. I do not mind a bit. I may have the figure but I have not the moustache. But it is a fact that the basis of a good Army is good discipline and that the real basis of discipline is the confidence of every man serving in the Army in his superior,


the officers in their superior officers and the men in their officers. We have to tackle that problem. I make no bones about it; we have allowed the quality of the officers of the British Army to decline. I may be considered to be taking up a class bias but I am not.
It is a fact that if we have men born and bred to be officers of the Army in a regiment in which their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers served and fought, we shall get a better quality officer than any other means can devise. That is not to say that everybody should not be given a chance of a commission even though he has not got that background. I plead that everything should be done to get young fellows with that background and breeding to come into the Regular Army where for many generations their forbears have done wonderful work. I am not trying to plead the cause of a particular class. I am merely trying to say that there lies the best quality of officer that we shall ever get. There have been many with faults. There have been duds, just as there are in every walk of life. But, by and large, there has been a great weight of service given for practically nothing for generations in the Regular Army by officers and their sons who have followed them. I wish to see them restored to their position. The other ranks look to that type of officer more than to anyone else to make them feel that they are at home in the regiments which these men know so much about. It is the other ranks who want these men to be their officers.
I wish to make one other point on the question of discipline. It is a great mistake for us to be led into thinking that a strictly disciplined unit is unhappy. Exactly opposite is the case. Provided the discipline is fair and just nobody objects. Nobody minds strict discipline. We want to be sure that we get it. It is a fact proved in many wars, including the last two great wars, that the best drilled and the smartest units in peace are the finest fighting units when it comes to battle. That is good enough proof that we should have the highest possible degree of discipline. We cannot have discipline if the officers and men are allowed to go about looking. sloppy. That will never do.
A typical thing which has done as much to cause sloppiness in the Army as any-

thing else is the introduction of that hideous thing called the beret. I am not going to refer to individuals, but I will say that the beret in the British Army was invented for a sound purpose. It was introduced for the Royal Armoured Corps as a headgear suitable for armoured fighting vehicles. But since then it has spread all over the Army, and now we see people slopping about in headgear that is a disgrace to anybody, let alone a British soldier. It is high time that the standard of dress and turn-out of British soldiers walking about the streets was stepped up tremendously. The Brigade of Guards and all the other good units in the Army are strict on the subject of turn-out. It used to be the case that the soldier who saw a man from his unit walking about sloppily dressed in uniform would go for him himself and say, "You are letting the regiment down." Does that happen today? If not, it is time that it did. That type of feeling should be encouraged. For wear in peace time this sloppy bit of cloth is a great mistake, except in the case of the Royal Armoured Corps. I hope that we shall see the end of it.
For goodness sake, let us have done with the bedside lamp mentality. Every Regular officer has always wanted to do his best for his troops. But now the Government hold out the prospect, "If you join the Army you will get a bedside lamp and you will have a nice job which you will learn." We should encourage men to join the Army to become fighting soldiers. The fighting man is far more important than the chap in support behind. All the emphasis appears to be on the chap with the spanner. Recruiting pictures say, "Join the Army and learn a career," they never say "Join the Army and fight and learn how to prove yourself." That is a wrong mentality which will do a great deal of harm.
I hope that I have not exaggerated. I know this to be true, and I feel it strongly. My pride in the British Army means that I want to see it as it used to be—the greatest fighting force in the world, in spite of its size. All this idea that the British do not know anything about soldiers but are wonderful sailors is wrong. The greatest commanders this world has ever seen came from these little islands—Montrose, Marlborough, Wellington, Sir Douglas Haig—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And Julius Caesar.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would point out to the hon. Member that Julius Caesar's visit here was a very short one.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It was very successful.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Yes, but I do not suggest that he was a great commander who came from these islands. Those I have mentioned were great men. We always hear that the French, the Germans, the Russians and everybody else are such magnificent soldiers. They are, but so are the British and they will continue to be if the War Office and the Ministers responsible will back them up and make sure that the soldier gets the best possible deal. We owe it to him and he will never let us down.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have been wondering whether a nonmilitary layman like myself might dare venture into a Debate which has been carried on so far more or less by Army officers. But after listening to all the speeches already delivered, I would say that there has not been very much difference in their tone. Both the Conservatives and my hon. Friends on the Labour side seem to have agreed on one thing, and that is that the enormous amount to be spent on these Fighting Services is not by any means too large. If there has been any dispute at all it has been about the way in which the money shall be spent. I was most intrigued with the arithmetic of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I know nothing about military affairs. He appeared to put forward the theory that there are in Central Europe 300 Soviet divisions.

Mr. Paget: I said that there were 30 in Germany and 300 on mobilisation.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that there were 300. If there are 20,000 men in a division, I thought that it was very alarming if the Russians had six million men in Germany at present. Apparently I was wrong.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is multiplication, not division.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have noticed in this Debate something akin to what we

heard about Hitler and his troops in 1938– 1939. I am sorry that there are indications emerging just now, especially from a speech by Lord Vansittart in the other place yesterday, that the people of this country must again be deliberately frightened that another enemy must be fought. I have one comment to make about recruiting Colonial troops. I do not understand why the white races have not learned their lesson in this connection. They cannot hope for much longer to enrol coloured men to fight the white man's battles. On that score I must pay tribute to our Government for the way in which we came out of India, leaving behind us a great deal of goodwill on the part of the Indian people toward the British. The Dutch, on the other hand, are making a fundamental mistake in not clearing out of Indonesia and creating a similar amount of goodwill among the Indonesians towards them. The day is fast approaching when the white races will not be allowed to use coloured folk to do their fighting. I thought that would have been said by someone else from this side of the House already.
I was interested in the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). He appears to have come to the conclusion, which some of us reached long ago, that military conscription is wrong. It is strange that military gentlemen are at last condemning conscription. When it was introduced we were told that conscription meant equality of sacrifice, but if I understand the position correctly we are now only calling up about 50 per cent. of the men eligible for conscription. The idea about equality of sacrifice therefore does not stand.
It is one of the most revolting things I have come across in my lifetime to witness the Government putting women into military clothes. That has occurred in the lifetime of most hon. Members present today. And now we are told that women may join the Army and wear military uniform for 22 years. I have several questions to ask on that score. Are these women soldiers in the British Army to be allowed to get married? More than that, if they become officers, will they be provided with married quarters? If they get married quarters will they be able to take their civilian husbands to those quarters just as officer


husbands are now entitled to take their civilian wives? I am not sure that the War Office have thought out this problem. The natural thing, of course, is for a woman to get married and have children. What will happen if hundreds of married women officers in married quarters with their civilian husbands have thousands upon thousands of children? Having known the Secretary of State for War for so many years, I was intrigued to note that he, above all others, claimed to be such an authority on military affairs. That is one of the greatest changes that has taken place in this House.
The other day I raised a question with the Minister of Defence, who brushed me aside very unceremoniously. As is known, His Majesty's Government are conscripting our lads for the Forces. We are collaborating with the American Government for defence purposes, and I am told authoritatively that the American Government did not call up any conscripts in February of this year, and will not call up any this month of March either, and probably no more after that. As they have a population three times as great as ours, why is it that our young fellows are conscripted and American lads are not? I would like an answer to that question, because it is very appropriate to these Estimates. I am glad that the Minister of Defence has just come into the House, because it was he who brushed me aside so unceremoniously the other day. Perhaps he has forgotten that once upon a time he and I preached the same gospel of peace from the same platform. Unfortunately, he has departed from that gospel, but I suppose we shall have to forgive him for that.
Some time ago I was fortunate enough to rally about 100 right hon. and hon. Members in support of a Motion asking the Government to do something about deserters in this country. I was told that there are about 20,000 of them. The Government must really look into this problem of thousands of men roaming the country without ration cards. Without ration cards they must steal to live. I am sure that part of our problem of crime can be attributed to that fact. I am not an authority on military affairs, but I would like to know whether the Government have made up their minds finally about these deserters.
What annoys me in a Debate like this is the complacency shown by Members of all parties towards the colossal expenditure and waste of manpower at a time of such economic difficulty. My view is that foreign affairs must begin at home. If this country were strong economically and financially any other Power which wished to attack us would be more afraid of doing so than if we put 300,000 raw conscripts into military uniform. How does it come about, therefore, that the House is willing to accept the proposition that 750,000 men and women can be dressed up in uniform, most of them doing nothing, and one million other people can be employed in factories and warehouses to attend to their wants—a total of 1,750,000 people wasting the nation's substance?
Finally, let me say something to my colleagues on this side of the House. It is strange that in my lifetime—and I have lived longer than most—that as capitalism is walking out over a large part of the earth's surface so militarism is moving in to take its place. I am as much afraid of militarism as I am of capitalism. The military machine is eating by far too much of every nation's substance; and the day will come, I hope, when a man or woman dressed in military uniform anywhere will be regarded as an offence against decent society.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I hope the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) will forgive me if I do not follow him too far in his argument. We all respect the sincerity with which he puts forward his case in this House, but perhaps he will allow me to remind him that had it not been for the fact that in the past sufficient men volunteered for the Regular Army, it is unlikely that he would have been given the opportunity this evening of expressing his views here without let or hindrance.
The speech of the Secretary of State for War was an improvement on that of the Minister of Defence, in last week's Defence Debate. The Secretary of State for War did at least tell us something. I could have wished that he had told us a good deal more; I could have wished that he had made rather fuller reference to events in Malaya, where British troops are in action and are suffering casualties; I could have wished that he had referred


to some of the problems of finding new bases in the Middle East, following the withdrawal of our troops from Palestine.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) said, the crux of the whole problem is the provision of a sufficient number of recruits for the Regular Army. This is the key to the Army's difficulties, and it is to this that the Secretary of State for War should address himself.
It is fairly clear to Members in all parts of the House that unless the Regular Army is adequate in size our National Service men cannot be properly trained, the Territorial Army cannot be provided with a sufficient number of qualified instructors and, we cannot possibly carry out any of our commitments overseas. It is not enough that the Regular Army shall provide trained instructors for the Territorial Army or that the Regular Army shall train the National Service men. The Regular Army by itself must be large enough to carry out operational training at all formation levels, because it is that Army which is the striking force in the event of sudden hostilities. We shall never get the right type of men to come forward for the Regular Army unless there are considerable improvements in pay, allowances and general conditions of service and unless we offer to men in that Army a career in the widest sense.
May I deal, first of all, with the question of pay and allowances of officers? The new pay code of July, 1946, made very sweeping changes. Certainly, basic rates were increased, but the most outstanding change was that allowances, for the first time, became subject to tax. The net result was that a large number of married officers were worse off than they were before the new pay code was introduced. Prior to 1946 the gross value of the various allowances for a married major living with his family was £234 a year. All of it was tax free. After the new pay code was introduced the same major received £228 gross and £147 net. It is true that there are what are called temporary supplementary allowances, given to officers who were drawing marriage allowance before the new pay code came into force. But it operates upon an ever-decreasing scale. It was worth £40 net in 1948. It goes down to £20 in 1949, and I understand that by

April, 1950, it will have disappeared altogether. Although in the White Paper which accompanied the new pay code it was stated that the increase in the pay and allowances would cost the Treasury £798,000, that same White Paper very conveniently omitted the fact that the revenue accruing to the Treasury now that allowances were subject to tax amounted to no less than £425,000, which puts the whole picture in a considerably different light.
So far as other ranks are concerned, let us be honest. The fact that for good reasons or bad the wage-freezing agreement has been largely torn up—wage increases in industry have become almost a weekly occurrence—has put the pay of other ranks in a considerably less favourable light. Although there have been certain increases in Army pay these are by no means in proportion to the great increases of wages in industry. The Army has become correspondingly less attractive. Moreover, the recent grant available to ex-Regulars in order to help them to defray the cost of training for civil employment, a scheme which was announced two or three weeks ago, are "subject to financial necessity." That is a very odd attitude to adopt. The Regular soldier who has saved enough money to start him off after his service in the Regular Army is finished does not get any help at all while the man who has not saved any money is apparently to get financial assistance. This is the old story where the thrifty is penalised and the spendthrift rewarded.
In these circumstances, although I do not intend to over-emphasise the question of pay and allowances as incentives to recruitment, it is not surprising that recruiting figures for the Regular Army are far from satisfactory, as the Secretary of State for War admitted. The Government must make up their minds whether they want an efficient Regular Army or not. If they do, they must provide the necessary finance. They are always trying to persuade the electors that they are giving everybody in this country something for nothing, but in regard to recruiting for the Regular Army the Government are in the reverse rôle. They cannot get recruits for the Regular Army on that basis. They must offer prospective recruits rewards and advantages to come into the Regular Army as a career in preference to employment in industry.
Precisely the same arguments apply, in a slightly different way to the Auxiliary Forces. Reference has been made by one hon. Gentleman to some of the problems of the Territorial Army and to the recruiting campaign. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir H. Watt) referred to the fact that the period of the year chosen for the recruiting campaign for the Territorial Army was not particularly happy. Speeches about patriotism alone are not sufficient. They have to be accompanied by something else, by some real incentive and some real evidence that the Government mean to help in a practical way. We are all trying to help the Government in their recruiting campaign both for the Regular Forces and for the Territorials. Let me say in parenthesis how fortunate the Government are to have the help of the Opposition on this occasion. How different was the position before the war when hon. Gentlemen opposite were sitting on these benches and were doing everything they could to prevent recruitment for the Army. However, we will let that go by and allow their misdeeds to be forgotten, and we shall congratulate those hon. Gentlemen on having at long last seen the light.
In relation to the Territorial Army I want to suggest one practical way in which the Government can help. Would the Secretary of State for War look into a number of complaints which have been received by his Department from the Territorial Army Association concerning local food offices which refuse licences to Territorial units, thereby preventing them from providing meals for men who must necessarily attend drill halls in the evening, coming straight from work? I hope that the Minister can look into that grievance, which is both genuine and deserving. I can give the Minister some of the details if he wishes to have them.
Complaints have also been received by hon. Members on all sides of the House about inadequate capitation grants for Army Cadet Force units. I can quote from my constituency an example of a unit which is probably typical of many Army Cadet units, where the capitation grant is roughly £130. The area happens to be rather spread out. The quartermaster, welfare officer, sports officer and others have to keep contact with companies either by post, in which case

stamps have to be bought, or by telephone, in which case the calls have to be paid for. Company commanders are in a precisely similar predicament in contacting battalion headquarters. There are huts in outlying villages used as platoon headquarters. In the winter months these huts have to be heated and lit. The bill for fuel and light must be met. A sum of £130 is quite inadequate. I know that during the last year or two that sum has been overspent. Many officers have defrayed small sums out of their own pockets. I think that is wrong. It suggests to me a rather niggardly, piecemeal policy of penny wisdom and pound foolishness. Perhaps these are details, but added up they tell their own story.
Lastly, I hope the Financial Secretary who replies will say something about the commitments of the British Army in relation to its present size. Has nobody worked out what is the required size of the Regular Army in the light of the commitments which the Government have undertaken? All I can discover in the Memorandum accompanying the White Paper (Cmd. 7633) is paragraph 8, which states, in rather forlorn language:
It must not be forgotten that, with the present shortage of Regulars, even with 18 months National Service, the Army is at present stretched to the limit to carry out essential tasks.
What does that mean? Is it meant to encourage some of our friends on the Continent with whom Field-Marshal Montgomery is conducting staff conversations in an attempt to work out a defence plan for Western Europe? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is quite satisfied that no further reinforcements are required in Malaya? Can he also tell us if he is equally satisfied that the garrisons at present stationed in the Middle East are adequate to fulfil their functions in certain circumstances? These are some of the things we want to know.
On the question of Western Union defence, surely, the Government are entering into certain definite commitments, because neither Western Union, nor the Atlantic Pact makes any sense at all unless each of the participating countries make some fairly substantial contribution to the common pool? What contribution are we making to Western


Union defence in a military sense? We must be making some new and definite military commitment; otherwise, why are we participating at all? This being so, what does the White Paper mean by the phrase that the Army is "stretched to the limit" of its capacity to carry out its essential tasks? British troops earmarked for the defence of Western Europe cannot be switched to the Far East in a sudden emergency. Or was the cartoon in the "Evening Standard" correct in suggesting that Western Union is based on a large number of generals with no troops?
I hope the hon. Gentleman can clear up some of these points, because, as with the Defence Debate last week, so with the Army Debate now; we do want to know whether or not there is an overall plan. It is no good shelving these questions because they are inconvenient; they must be faced. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with his colleagues in the Service Departments, to realise how grave is their responsibility in these days, and to enter into their task with a vigour, energy and speed that is commensurate with the gravity of the times in which we are living.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I am not going to follow up in detail the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. MottRadclyffe), though I intend to comment on the major issues which he has raised, and, in particular, those in respect of the pay of the Armed Forces and the whole question of a striking force.
To begin with, however, I should like to comment upon an interesting tendency which is new in these Debates. It seems to me that we are all becoming anti-conscriptionists now, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) had some reason for giving himself a pat on the back, in view of the general spirit of this Debate today and of Services Debates recently. Not very long ago, practically everybody agreed that conscription was a necessity, and a large majority of people suggested that it was a permanent necessity. [Interruption.] Yes, that was certainly true, and I could quote examples from speeches suggesting that it should be the permanent basis of the Armed Forces. The general tendency now is to emphasise

all the disadvantages which we are suffering, in regard to the effect of Regular recruitment, Territorial Army recruitment, and in other ways, from the continued existence of National Service with a fairly long period, and to suggest that we should get rid of it as quickly as possible.
Not many days ago, I was reading through some of the Debates on Army Estimates that followed the first world war, and I jotted down one very interesting quotation from a speech made by the then Secretary of State for War, who said:
Undiscouraged and undeterred by our failure to convert others, we have proceeded to set an example ourselves. Alone among the nations, we have decided to abolish compulsory military service, and I venture to think that this action … deserves additional recognition from those who have so vehemently demanded it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1920; Vol. 125, c. 1340–41.]
That was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) introducing the Army Estimates in 1920, when he was asking for £75 million and for an Army 220,000 strong. It is a strange contrast, when we look at the manpower and money involved today and the attitude that has been taken to the Defence Forces in the three or four years following the Second World War, compared with the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman in 1920, when he was "undiscouraged and undeterred by failure to convert others" and held it out as a virtue that this country had abolished compulsory military service unilaterally.
I was most interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). In the course of the last few years, he has made many interesting speeches on defence matters, and I think some of us on this side of the House who follow these things recognise that his speeches are particularly well-informed, and, in fact, in some circles, are regarded as being authoritative. Therefore, I listened very carefully to him—and I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment—when he made his contribution to the Defence Debate and also the contribution which he made to our Debate today. I want to make one quotation from his speech in the Defence Debate last week in order to comment upon it and upon the way in which he also developed the same theme in our Debate


today. Summarising his principal point, he said:
In the middle of a time of great economic stress, when we are struggling for our economic recovery, and in the middle of a foreign situation which demands the preparedness of our defences, we are being asked to give to the right hon. Gentleman £750 million and 1,500,000 men, including those in the factories. That is a very considerable amount of money and manpower to grant in these days. The question which the House should have answered today is this: with that money and those men, why have you produced so little that can fight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 625.]
In a rather longer speech today, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said the same thing, but I feel that, in fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in his opening speech answered the question.
This is the answer to the question why so few fighting men have been produced by the expenditure of such an enormous quantity of money and manpower. It can be given in one word—commitments. That is one of the subjects which we have been discussing in the whole period that has passed since 1945. The answer is that if so much of the Army has to be used, including National Service men, to police far-flung territories, and if we maintain a system of National Service whereby so much of the Army is tied down training the recruits, what have we left? All the territorial commitments in widespread territories have to be garrisoned and policed. Then there is the further commitment of National Service. A big proportion of the Regular Army is tied down training National Service men. The argument accepted on all sides when the Bill was introduced in 1947 was that we must have National Service in order to get trained reserves for the Army. But it means that a certain section of the trained men in the Army are tied down training a large number of other men, and are not in formations that are mobilised or operationally fit.
The reason why we have so little fighting power, so small a striking force, is that that is what is left when all the policemen in the garrisons and all those under training and engaged in training are subtracted. That is why the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton comes to the conclusion that we must abolish National Service in order to get a striking force.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) suggested that we were in a position to abolish National Service at this stage. He was in agreement with the Secretary of State for War who said that the long-term plan was a gradual reduction.

Mr. Swingler: I am very sorry if I have misrepresented what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said last week and this, afternoon, but he did suggest that National Service was a millstone round, the neck of the Army. Anybody who reads his speech could only draw that conclusion. I could dig out a speech which he made in December, 1947, in which he suggested the same thing, that the continued existence of National Service was tying down too many of the trained men in the Army, and that that was a big disadvantage because they were the men who should be in formations which were fighting fit.
We are faced with three alternatives when we consider this position. In order to get more fighting power, we have either to have more men than we have actually got in addition to all those training or under training, or else we have to withdraw some of the commitments or abandon National Service. Another suggestion made by hon. and gallant Members opposite is that we ought to have a much shorter period of National Service in order to free many of the trained men who are now tied down training National Service men for a period of 18 months. I wish we had had the support of those hon. and gallant Members at the time when we on this side were insisting that we should have the shortest possible period of National Service. I voted for the continuance of National Service because I thought it was necessary, but I pressed for the shortest possible period of such service on the ground that National Service should not be a means of bolstering up the main Army, but should be a means of training reserves. But for that we require the minimum period. That gives the greatest economy because we have not so many of the Regular Forces owing to the fact that they are tied down in training establishments instead of composing the formations about which hon. and gallant Members opposite talked so much.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffes: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he was equally impressed with the argument by the Minister of Defence that 18 months was the minimum necessary on one day and 12 months 48 hours later?

Mr. Swingler: I am sure that the 12 months is right; if anything, it might be even too long. Again, I could quote the authority of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton for saying that we ought very seriously to consider a National Service system based on six months. The whole tendency should be towards the most economical period. If we want National Service, and agree that it is necessary to have trained reserves in order to have a floating body of men in the Army which we can send hither and thither to bolster up the Regular Forces where there Is a gap, then we want a minimum period of training. When we consider the whole question of the fighting power of the Services generally, it is quite clear that we have to make certain assumptions in regard to the size and composition of the Armed Forces, and how much money is to be devoted to them. Obviously, it is different if we think there is going to be a major war in the next 12 months, different again if we think that a major war will not come for five years, or that there is not going to be one at all.
We cannot have an Army which is thoroughly operationally fit and on a war basis and at the same time have it on a peace-time basis. We run certain risks either way. If we maintain it on a war basis with masses of fighting formations and so on, the risk is the economic ruin of the country under present circumstances. On the other side, we always have to run certain risks, as is so frequently pointed out by hon. Members opposite, of military unpreparedness. In Debates on this subject, there is very often an air of unreality because we do not bear in mind all the time the balance of manpower in the country. We must remember that we are not meeting the vital manpower needs of industry, and that we are having battles on the economic front. What is the good of maintaining a colossal Army if the nation has feet of clay?
We are often told of military unpreparedness by hon. Members opposite. As

we have seen elsewhere, great masses of expensive armaments and fortifications all tend towards ruining the country economically, demoralise it, and they are no good if there is nothing to back them up. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton referred to the fact that today we have an Army of over 400,000 men. We have recently had the figures of the United States Army given to us. On 1st July, it will have 677,000 men, 92,000 in Europe, 5,000 in Trieste, 170,000 in the Far East, etc. That is the figure for the United States Army compared with 400,000 for the Army of this country, which has only one-third of the population of the United States. By that standard, it is seen that we have, proportionately, a very heavy burden to bear.
I want very rapidly to turn to another subject on which so much of our discussion has been concentrated, and which was also dealt with by the hon. Member for Windsor. It is the question of pay. In all these Debates we have heard a lot about the question of pay, as if that question had been neglected by the Government, or that what the Government had done was something discreditable. Hon. Members opposite are continually talking about the need to increase the pay for soldiers and for people in the Armed Forces generally. I want quite quickly to look at some of the history behind this topic, because I think we should get this question of pay into a proper historical perspective and see the way in which it was generally dealt with, so that we may judge how good or how bad is the record of the Government on this question. I learn from those who are expert in the subject that in 1919, after the First World War, certain rates of pay for the Army were laid down, to come into effect in July, 1920. One of the things provided for was that the pay of officers should vary according to the rise or fall of the cost of living. As, generally speaking, the cost of living was declining from 1919 to 1924, the pay for officers actually went down.
In 1923 an Amendment to King's Regulations was introduced which laid down that the Army Council had the power to vary from time to time the conditions of service, including pay, for new volunteers entering the Armed Forces. They could not affect those who had already volunteered and joined, but they could


vary conditions, as they thought fit from time to time, for those men coming into the Army. The idea of the Government of 1923 was, in fact, to introduce a reduction in the rates of pay, but that was scotched by the minority Labour Government which came into power in 1924.
In 1925 the rates of pay in the Army were reduced by more than ten per cent. of the 1919 rates by a new pay code which came into operation on 26th October, 1925, for new volunteers. Six years later, at the time of the financial crisis and the election of the National Government, cuts of about 10 per cent. of the 1919 rates were introduced for all those who had not been affected by the 1925 cuts. Those cuts were gradually restored over the period 1934 to 1935 and in 1938, under the Army Order 169 of that date, a rise in pay by time-promotion was given to officers. Looking over that period, as I have done very briefly, we see a series of reductions or attempted reductions in the rates of pay for the Army which were fixed in 1919 and which nobody at that time described as being over-generous.
I would point out to hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite that these reductions in pay made in the inter-war period were, without exception, made by Conservative or predominantly Conservative Governments. Since this Government has been in power, since 1945, a new pay code has been introduced for the Armed Forces. Nobody would describe that pay code as being ideal, but I think we can say that the new code represents a substantial advance on anything that the Forces have previously had in peace-time. It is based upon a comparison between the payment of soldiers, sailors and airmen with that of people in civilian occupations. I would not suggest that there is no room for improvement on this question of pay, but I think hon. and gallant Gentlemen should be a little careful in shooting at the Ministers of this Government who have introduced this new code, comparing favourably with the past, in view of the record which there has usually been in peace-time in regard to the pay of Forces—and those particular Governments before the war were those for which the party opposite were responsible.
I have another point to make. We have frequently discussed why we do not

have sufficient volunteers for the Regular Forces. We all know that it is due to a combination of factors, one of which is full employment, a second of which is the natural reaction, psychologically, after a long war, and a third of which is certainly some unattractive features about the Service. But we must be careful as to the conclusions which we draw. Hon. Members agree that a certain additional number of volunteers are required to man up the Regular Army and that that is something very vital, and they draw the conclusion, therefore, that there must be increases of pay in order to induce people to join.
I do not think all those hon. Members would immediately agree, however, that as it is vital that we should have, for example, more agricultural labourers, more coal miners, more textile workers, immediately the conclusion should be drawn that we should go on putting up the wages in those industries until we get a sufficient number of people to man them up. It is not the conclusion they draw that it automatically follows that we must go on increasing pay until we get a sufficient number of people volunteering. I believe that soldiers should have the best possible conditions, but I do not believe in the idea of bribing people to enter the Army, of making it a kind of élite, and I believe there are a lot more things the Secretary of State for War ought to get on with as well as looking into the question of possible increases in pay.
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton did not return to the Chamber until the middle of my speech. I should certainly be accused by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of idle repetition if I went over my speech again, which I am strongly tempted to do, because so much of it was by way of a compliment to the hon. and gallant Member. I have endeavoured to comment upon what he said. As he has now returned, and as I was earlier challenged on this point, I want finally to emphasise one point I have already made. I believe that the tenor of the views which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been advocating for some considerable time is that we must abandon National Service because it is a millstone around the neck of the Regular Army, and in fact what he has been saying—

Brigadier Head: I must apologise for my absence earlier in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I responded to an S.O.S. to go and look at the report of my speech, which I believe in some quarters, was in parts unintelligible. I believe I am not very distinct as a speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for my absence but he is absolutely wrong in what he says. Perhaps he was not in the Chamber when I made my speech. The whole tenor of my speech was that if we could stimulate volunteer recruiting into the Regular Army, we might to a reciprocal extent be able gradually to reduce the period of National Service, but I never mentioned the word "abolition" at all.

Mr. Swingler: I wanted to get the point clear, because looking at the many speeches which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made—and I think this affects other hon. Members as well, certainly the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in the interpretation he made—the hon. and gallant Member gave the idea to many that he was suggesting the earliest possible abandonment of National Service on the ground that National Service was a commitment for the Regular Army—it was another thing like a territorial commitment which tied up a large number of men who would otherwise be operationally effective in formations, and that, therefore, it should be disposed of at the earliest possible date. I am glad now to know that the hon. and gallant Member thinks we should stick permanently to the idea of National Service. I think that is what he said, but he said that we should reduce the period of- National Service. He now says that what we have to do it to get a better Regular Army, in order to be able to reduce the period of National Service.

Brigadier Head: May I intervene again? I do not want to repeat my speech and I refer the hon. Member to HANSARD tomorrow. In about three words, what I said was that we should increase Regular recruiting and turn off the flow of National Service men reciprocally, either by a numerical reduction or by a reduction in the period of service—one or the other. There are two alternative methods and it is very hard to say which is best. My point is: let us see how Regular

recruiting goes up before we do that. The whole tenor of my speech was that there are too many National Service men at the moment and too weak volunteer Forces. We must adjust the balance.

Mr. Swingler: So the hon. and gallant Gentleman believes that we have to get rid of the selective call-up. He says that we have too many National Service men, and the Army cannot absorb the full amount of the call-up, and therefore we have to have either a more discriminating call-up of National Service men or reduce the period of service. I wish that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, seeing that he holds those views, would support those of us who have advocated a shorter period of National Service. That is the only reasonable conclusion which he can come to, and therefore he should certainly support the agitation for a shorter period of national service which is the only solution of this problem of the unbalance of National Service men and Regulars in the Army. I have already taken too long and I will not, therefore, continue this argument.

EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING

8.3 p.m.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BALDWIN: Leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and add:
this House considers that immediate steps should be taken to overcome the shortage of modern equipment which impairs efficiency and makes impossible the specialised training necessary to meet aggression and that the absence of trained formations due to the shortage of recruits imperils our defence; it therefore calls upon the Government to improve the conditions of service in order to attract recruits to the Regular Army.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Mr. Bowles): I ought to point out to the hon. Gentleman that all the words after "defence" in his Amendment are out of Order and, therefore, the Amendment which he will move contains the words down to the word "defence," and the last sentence of the Amendment is not included.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Is it not usual that when an Amendment is accepted by the Table, it is regarded as being in Order? This Amendment was accepted by the Table after the Ballot took place.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not ruled by the Table. The Amendment is out of Order because it is wider than the terms of which the hon. Gentleman gave notice when his name was called out in the Ballot two or three weeks ago. Therefore, the last sentence is not included in the Amendment.

Earl Winterton: I think that we ought to have a definite Ruling on what is rather a novel point. I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your Ruling is that it is the Chair alone who decides whether a Motion is in Order, and that anything which I hand in to the Table, and which is accepted by the Table, is not necessarily in Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Table may be the first obstacle to get over, but ultimately the decision must lie with the Chair as to whether or not a certain Amendment is in Order.

Mr. Baldwin: I hope that you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the difficulty with which I and my hon. Friends are put in, because the tenor of my speech will be somewhat on the lines of the Amendment and deal with the matter of recruitment. All that I can suggest is that you should be as lenient as you can because in the Amendment which stands in my name, the question is raised of the lack of trained formations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is moving an Amendment to the Motion, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair." He and his hon. Friend who is seconding, are entitled to speak widely in the general Debate, but when he has moved the Amendment and it has been put from the Chair, then that is the Amendment before the House and the Debate is accordingly narrowed.

Mr. Baldwin: I am now getting to the point where it is quite impossible for me to call attention to the lack of trained formation, unless I can deal with what I suggest should be the method of getting those trained formations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend can speak as widely as they like, but having once moved the Amendment, the rest of the Debate is narrowed to the Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin: In those circumstances I feel that it would be better for me not to move the Amendment and to speak on the general Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no obligation to move the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman can speak on the ordinary Debate without moving the Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin: I am much obliged because it would make my position difficult.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that he does not now intend to move his Amendment?

Brigadier Head: I think that part of my hon. Friend's dilemma is that should he speak in the general terms he proposes to, particularly with regard to his desire to elicit information from the Secretary of State for War, then the Secretary of State will be debarred once the Amendment has been moved from replying on matters not within the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that is so. I have the responsibility of deciding whether the Amendment is in Order or not, and the hon. Gentleman has the responsibility of seeing that his Amendment is in Order, and, between us, he has the right to move and his hon. Friend to second the Amendment without the last sentence, but the Debate on the Amendment is limited by the words in the Amendment.

Earl Winterton: That does not prevent the hon. Member from saying what he likes until he actually moves the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that I have said that three times.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: Now that we have got this dilemma removed, I accept that decision and will move the Amendment at some future time. I would say that I am speaking in this Debate because of the luck of the ballot. This is the first occasion on which I have taken any part in the Debates on the Armed Forces and, therefore, possibly I should declare my interest. I happen to be a relic of the first world war and possibly my views may be out-dated and old-fashioned, but


I have certain ideas about the training and the methods of recruiting the Regular Army and also the Territorial Army.
During my term of service, by the luck of posting, I happened to be placed with one of the best batteries in the Royal Horse Artillery, and I had the opportunity of seeing many different regiments and of forming a fair opinion as to the discipline, training and so forth of those regiments. In this Debate, I do not propose to name any regiment except the Brigade of Guards. I mention that Brigade for two reasons. One because of the standard of discipline, training and efficiency which I was enabled to see, and the other reason is that I want to take this opportunity of dealing with the sneering remark which was made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) in the Defence Debate. I gave him notice that I was going to raise this matter but, unfortunately, it is not possible for him to be present. What he said in reference to the Brigade of Guards was to the effect that a man's efficiency was judged by the shine on his boots and the mechanical precision of his movements. In other words, it was a denunciation of what is looked upon as "spit and polish."
I have my own views on that matter. I can relate one instance which came under my own personal observation. When the Germans broke through on the 4th Corps front in the Spring of 1918, my Brigade, with other troops, was rushed from Italy to help stem the tide. We took up our position behind the lines where the Guards had been in action, and when I went forward as observing officer and saw that the relieving unit were in improvised trenches, I asked, "What was it that stopped the Germans in this open country?" The reply I got was "The Guards came in here; they lay down in the open and stopped the rush with their rifles.' In confirmation of that I saw the bodies of Germans lying about.
I mention that because the point I want to emphasise in this Debate is one which was brought up in the very brilliant speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). and that is that we must have a highly trained, efficient and mobile Regular Army. That means we must also have an Army that is mobile by air. It is

essential for the defence of this country that we should build up as quickly as possible the old type of Regular Army, and whatever steps are necessary to achieve that must be taken.
It was never more essential that we should have a highly trained and mobile Army. In the old days of trench warfare troops could hold a trench and did not need the same efficiency that is required today. If we have not got highly skilled, trained and efficient men, it is absolute murder to send them into battle.
That is where I agree so heartily with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) about the National Service men. We supported conscription, but we did not agree that it should be a permanent feature of our recruitment. It was a stop-gap method, and as soon as possible it should be done away with. What we have to build up is a force of Regular troops, and standing behind them reserve troops and an efficient Territorial Army.

Mr. Swingler: May I interrupt the hon. Member?

Mr. Baldwin: I think the hon. Member spoke for about half an hour and it is about time he had a rest. On the question of reserves, I want to ask the Minister to give some indication of the strength of our Reserve Forces at the present time. According to my information, the strength has dropped from 71,000 in 1947–48 to 51,000 in 1949–50. I suggest that we want to get back to our pre-war strength of something like 140,000. It is not only essential that these reserves should be kept in being, but that some opportunity should be given for them to come up for training at least once a year to brush themselves up and learn how to handle any fresh equipment.
The important grade of reservists is Class A, and I wish to ask the Minister whether he considers that 18d. a day is a sufficient encouragement for these men to remain in that Reserve, which means they hold themselves in readiness to be called up at a moment's notice to serve anywhere at any time. Again, I cannot believe that a Is. a day is a sufficient attraction for Class B and Class D Reserves. We are also entitled to know something more in regard to Class Z Reserve, which should be a very important body of men. It would be of in-


terest to know whether any steps have been taken to check up the addresses of these men in Class Z Reserve, and whether the right hon. Gentleman knows how many of them are in reserved occupations, how many are now medically unfit and how many could be called up in the event of an emergency. These are valuable trained men who could be called upon to train the National Service men.
The argument of my hon. and gallant Friend about National Service men was that the intake was too big for the Regular Army to train, and that the Regular Army ought to be training recruits for the Regular Army instead of taking up their time in training National Service men who are nothing like so important. There should be a steadying up of the National Service intake. I was delighted that my hon. and gallant Friend was present at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), because what he had been saying was entirely wrong. My hon. and gallant Friend was able to call attention to the fact that the intake was too high and lopsided. As soon as we have built up the Regular Army this system should be abolished. It is entirely disruptive of our economic life. These young men have no encouragement when they leave school to learn a trade and take on a job, and employers are loth to take them on because they know that after a certain amount of time has been spent in training them they are called up for the Army. It will be all to the good when National Service can be abolished, not only from the point of view of the efficiency of the fighting troops but also from the point of view of the young men themselves. Conscription was essential when it was introduced because we needed to get a pool of trained men as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) has suggested that six months would be sufficient to train a National Service man. All I can say is that if I had to go out on a job I would sooner take four fully-trained men with me than a whole platoon of men who had had only six months' training, because they would be a danger to themselves and to everyone else. I suggest that in these days of modern warfare 18 months is insufficient to train a soldier. Another thing is that these young men have not

got their hearts in the job. They are spending their time coming and going, and the only thing they learn to do efficiently is the chores mentioned by the Minister. They may be trained to peel potatoes, but is it worth while conscripting a young man to teach him that? In conversations I had with many of these men, they have told me in no uncertain terms that a great deal of their time is wasted on jobs that are not worth while. The amount of training they get is nothing at all, and it is just a waste of manpower.
I wish now to say a word in regard to the Territorial Army. Because I have left it until last does not mean that I think it is unimportant. On the contrary, it is one of the most important branches of the Army after the Regular troops. When we think of the response to the appeal for recruits to the Territorial Army and how pathetic it has been, it is evident that something is wrong. Just as it is necessary to give some incentive to the Regulars to join the Army, so in my opinion the niggardly and mingy method of dealing with the Territorial volunteers should be altered. It is quite sufficient that these men should give up their time to service the country without having to be out of pocket at the same time.
Why is it considered sufficient to give a Territorial volunteer 3½d. a mile for running his car, while in one of the other civil services 5d. or 6d. a mile is given? What is fair for one is fair for another. In this country we deal with the two most essentials of our life in this mingy and niggardly way. The production of food and the Fighting Services are the two most important things, and they are the worst paid of any section of the community. Why this niggardliness with regard to volunteers? If they were members of the Coal Board they would get £1,000 a year for expenses. If we can afford to give that sum of money to members of the Coal Board free of Income Tax we can be more generous towards these men. Surely it would be a greater attraction to them to go for their training.
Another point that occurs to me is, why should an employer be expected to make any contribution towards the salary of these men? Why should it be a sacrifice to the individual? The nationalised industries are held up as a pattern for


making up the wages of the men. That comes from the taxpayer. Why should not the wages that these men lose in civil life be made up by the taxpayer? What is fair for one is surely fair for the other. It is quite enough for these employers to lose the services of skilled men during their period of training without being called upon to put their hands into their pockets as well. I suggest that the Minister should look at that aspect. The response to the recruiting appeals for the Territorial Army would be increased if this niggardliness were done away with. Another small matter concerns the tradesman who was in the Army and wants to join up in the Territorials, but will not be accepted as a tradesman with the Territorials unless he was following that trade before he went into the Army. It is a small thing, but I can quite see that there may be many men who would like to join the Territorials in the trade which they followed in the Army. They are not going to take the risk of being called up for general service, but if they knew they would be taken as tradesmen they would volunteer.
I have called attention to the shortages and I am going to suggest what must be tackled. I know the first is the question of pay and conditions. The hon. Member for Stafford has been raking over the ashes of the past, as I am afraid is so often done here. What does it matter now about 1925? What matters is how we are going to get the men into the Army today.

Mr. Gilzean: What hon. Members opposite gave in 1925 was also given in 1825.

Mr. Baldwin: Hon. Members opposite got into office on a pamphlet called "Let Us Face the Future." They spend half their time raking over the ashes of the past. I am not here to talk about what went on before. The contributions made today by the Opposition have been constructive suggestions to the Secretary of State for War. They are not made in any party spirit, and I do not wish to bring party acrimony into this matter. In view of the conditions which full employment bring today, if Regular men are to be got for the Army it has got to be made sufficiently attractive, either through pay or conditions. The Government will have to tackle one or both. It has been said

that the pay has not been increased and my suggestion is that, in fact, it has been decreased, because the purchasing value of the £ has gone down by 15d. in the last three years. Men paid today with the same money are actually worse off than they were two or three years ago.
Then there is the question of building married quarters. The days are gone when men could be expected to live under the hard conditions under which they lived 50 or 60 years ago. Conditions are different, though all the improved conditions have not taken place during the last three years, as some hon. Members seem to think. It has been a gradual improvement, and we must improve the conditions of the Regular soldier at the same time. He must have the opportunity of a married life and a certain amount of enjoyment. He must not feel that he is always in his uniform and at the beck and call of many. He must have the essentials and the amenities which people in civilian life enjoy. One of the deciding factors as to whether a man will stop in the Army or not is very often his wife, and she is not prepared to put up with any old thing. I have had a letter from a Regular soldier and in it he suggests to me that one of the grievances which Regular soldiers have is too frequent postings. He says that they get posted here, there and everywhere without rhyme or reason. He did not know why it was done, but one of the results was that his wife had to give up their married quarters, and it was possible that in the place where they were going to there was no possible chance of living under reasonable conditions.
I wholeheartedly support what my hon. and gallant Friend said with regard to long service. These men should be encouraged to go in for an Army life for a period up to 21 years if they wish to do so. At the end of their service it is essential that they must know that they have a reasonable chance of getting a job. A booklet has been published entitled "Resettlement of Regular Personnel of His Majesty's Forces." That document is not forthright enough. There are too many escape clauses. For instance in one place it says that all awards are subject to financial necessity. I hope the Secretary of State for War will look at that. Why should there be a means test for a man who has been thrifty and has saved up sufficient money


to give him a start in life when he leaves the Army? Those are the men who should get further assistance. If a man leaves the Army with a reasonably clean record of service a job should be found for him in one of the nationalised industries or in the Post Office. He should know that he has a good chance of continuing in a reasonable job for the rest of his life. I have already mentioned the subject of married quarters, and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will take up the question of married quarters with the Minister of Health and point out to him that a house built for a soldier's family or for a civilian family is a house built. The first priority should be given to soldiers for their wives, so that they can be encouraged to join the Army.
Another grievance which this soldier mentioned to me in his letter is that of the number of free warrants with which they are issued. I believe I am right in saying that in the Civil Service there are nine free warrants a year issued for those living away from home. A man in the Army, I suggest, living away from home should be given a free pass each time he gets 48 hours' leave. That would be an encouragement and help to family life, and anything we can do in that respect is worth while doing.
It would help these soldiers also if their children could have the benefit of a boarding school. This man had a small girl just over seven years of age and she had been to four different schools. No child can be properly educated under those conditions, and that matter might be looked into. Exhortation is no good in these recruiting campaigns. The Minister should give us something we can put forward at the recruiting meetings which will attract and encourage these men to join either the Territorial or Regular Army.
The Superannuation Bill was given a Second Reading yesterday. It provides that the widow of a civil servant shall be entitled to one-third of the pension he was drawing at the time of his death. If he dies while still in the Service, she will get one-third of the pension right which has accrued to him. This right should be extended to men in the Armed Forces. Why should not a man in the Armed Forces have the same rights and privileges as a man in the Civil Service?

At present if a man dies while serving his widow has no entitlement to pension although she may be given an exiguous pension by the Army Council. The officer is little better off. We must look at the conditions in the Regular Army with the same eyes as we look at conditions in civilian life. If there is any benefit to be given, let it he given to the men living under difficult conditions and risking their lives for our sake.
We want more than a modest instalment of modernisation of equipment. It is time we stopped living on our fat. We may do it in our economic life for a time, though that will come to an end, but it is not quite so dangerous as living on the fat of our old equipment. I was glad to hear the Minister say that a thorough overhaul is being made of vehicles at present in store, for it is long overdue. There is a tremendous waste in manpower in looking after the stores of ammunition which are littered all over the countryside, and there is a great waste in money as well in the agricultural land on which ammunition is stored in hutments and depôts. So I hope the Minister will have a thorough spring clean, get rid of that which is not efficient, and build up some modern stores.
Under Vote 7 D there is a reduction in the amount for signals and wireless from £2,960,000 to £1,625,000. I hope the Minister can give some explanation to the House, because the impression might be gathered that we were losing a certain amount of efficiency by not keeping up this equipment. Have we a British Jeep? This vehicle came in with the Americans and proved to be of enormous value. If our men are to be mobile and get anywhere across the country they must have a Jeep comparable to, or better than, the American.
There is a well-informed rumour going around that our tanks have not been very successful. Is it correct to say that the Canadian authorities are refusing to have anything to do with the present British tanks because they consider them to be badly designed and, in consequence, are turning to American ones? Bearing on this, I am told also that a firm which was given notice to produce 25,000 tank periscopes some long time ago has never yet been called upon to do the job. Is that because there are no tanks to put them in?
It is difficult in these Debates to avoid shadow boxing. Defence should not be a party affair. There are plenty of matters about which we can have a scrap across the Chamber if we want to do so, but defence is not one of them. Times are such that defence should be taken out of party altogether, and I welcome the suggestion of the Prime Minister that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) should discuss defence with him. I would suggest something further. I should like to see a small defence committee and on it a few of my hon. and gallant Friends who contribute so largely to these Debates with constructive suggestions. If those of us who are not on that committee like to have a quarrel about the Estimates, well and good, it amuses us and does no harm. These Debates, however, where the Minister quite rightly has to be careful about what he should disclose for security reasons, and where we have to criticise on information sometimes based on rumours and sometimes on inside information, may well be dangerous. The silence of the Minister may give the impression that all is not well, and that may be a deterrent to those nations on the Continent with which we want to cooperate and which we want in our Union. A small defence committee would be all to the good, and there would be a much better feeling in the country if we dealt with Defence matters in that way.
I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add:
this House considers that immediate steps should be taken to overcome the shortage of modern equipment which impairs efficiency and makes impossible the specialised training necessary to meet aggression and that the absence of trained formations due to the shortage of recruits imperils our defence.

8.39 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to second the Amendment moved so sincerely and ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin).
I agree with my hon. Friend fundamentally that defence should not be used as a vehicle for party differences, particularly in such intensely serious times as these. I know I speak on behalf of my other hon. and gallant Friends when I give the right hon. Gentleman my

categorical assurance that I intervene purely with a view to propounding some constructive thought and not with a view to criticising the Minister personally on what has been done. I only wish to bring to this House the result of my 30 years' experience in His Majesty's Regular Army, as it is my duty to do.
In default of any authoritative information as to what is to be the function of our Armed Forces in the event of an unfortunate conflict, I will pose three suggestions on which to base my theme. I suggest that the first is the seizure of vital points at widely differing positions in the world. The second is the defence of these islands. The third is our fulfilment of obligations to Western Union. For the first, the requirement quite clearly is a limited number of highly-trained men capable of being borne by air at a moment's notice to any part of the globe, and not one man should be included in those numbers who is not worth his air transport. For the defence of these islands what we require are highly-trained, mobile troops, whose training is integrated with the Civil Defence plan. What we want for Western Union are highly-trained formations who have trained with, and are prepared to fight alongside, the Defence Forces of Western Union.
My contention is that the present system is not achieving any one of these three things. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) has left the Chamber, but I should like to impress upon him that since our last Debate on Army Estimates world conditions have altered very considerably, for one factor, if no other, that China has gone into the Communist fold. The time has come when we must seriously review our position and decide whether the long-term policy which was originally embarked upon by His Majesty's Government, and had the support of all my hon. Friends and myself, is still the right one, or whether an immediate modification is required. That is the whole gravamen of the speeches which we on this side are endeavouring to make on this subject tonight.
At present the National Service man is being trained by the Regular Army. It is obvious to me and to everybody else that units cannot train these men and themselves at the same time. It


is rather like putting boys of the fourth form at school to train with sixth form boys; as a result, unit and formation training is wrecked and the recruit is given a type of training which at this juncture he does not require. I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that this year there is to be some unit and formation training in B.A.O.R. I trust that this is not merely a pious hope and that it really will come about. I have been to Germany and am not disclosing inside information when I say that the brigade I commanded is stretched from one end of Germany to the other. I suggest that possibly the time has come when some of the policing duties now being undertaken by the Army could be done by the Germans. Surely, the Germans are now beginning to reach the stage when they can be trusted to do their own policing under reasonable supervision, so that our units which are scattered so very widely may be concentrated in order to carry out vital training.
I am very pleased to hear that formation training is - to take place. I should like to urge in all seriousness upon the Chiefs of Staff to the right hon. Gentleman that this training should be confined in emphasis to the resistance of the initial attack. Valuable and vital lessons were learned in France in 1940, notably at St. Valery. The knowledge and experience of the survivors of those days is invaluable, as are the recent lessons from the last conflict of offence and combined operation. It is perfectly clear, I trust, to anybody in this House and in the world that we shall not be the' first to take the offensive. The first battle, therefore, will be one of defence. Not for five or six years has the British Army fought a defensive battle, and during the early stages of the last war there were some grave consequences as a result of the lack of knowledge and training for resistance to the initial offensive.
I am convinced that a new short-term policy is needed, and needed urgently, and what must be aimed at at the earliest possible moment is a highly-trained, efficient Regular Army, organised in formations and possessing overwhelming fire power. That is the crux of the whole problem. Men must be trained to handle these weapons, which must be weapons capable of delivering, easily and quickly,

immense fire power. Combined with this is the vital need for close support aircraft. We lost the battle of France in 1940 largely because we did not have air superiority over the battlefield. We won our battles in the end because we had that air superiorty.
A certain amount of detail is permitted on these Estimates Debates, and I want to go into just two small details. First, the question of the multiple mortar Anybody who fought in the last stages of the war against the Germans will know that one of the most unpleasant things the Germans could produce in any battle were these five or six tubes—drainpipes fastened together almost with a piece of string, which could be put on to a little trolley and wheeled about. Batteries of 20 and 30 of these weapons would each fire several large mortars at once. These were one of the most unpleasant and alarming experiences with which anyone had to contend in the war. Their chief strength was in their mobility. I hope that the British Army will not go into battle next time with the single-barrelled Stokes mortar. I am not asking for this information—this is a rhetorical question.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell rose—

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: For security reasons I do not want the Minister to give me an answer on that, but I should like to ask him whether a multiple mortar of that kind is being produced. If it is not, the sooner it is produced the better.
The other disturbing factor is the reduction in the Vote on wireless equipment, at which I am horrified. The whole of modern battle formations, right down to platoons and even to sections, is based on wireless. I hope that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Chiefs of Staff are being led astray by some of the certain types of general who still exist who do not believe in wireless communications in war. Then there is the question of radar in the front-line formations. We were getting quite a long way with radar towards the end of the war, and I hope we are not going to shelve all the brilliant work of the latter stages. Again, for security reasons, I can say no more than that. I hope, however, that this reduction in the Vote for wireless stores and equipment will not affect either the communications of the Army or the standard of its wireless and radar equipment.
To revert to the main theme of the Debate. The immediate stimulus to voluntary recruiting for the Regular Army is, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) said, an immediate 25 per cent. all-round rise in pay. This would have the desired effect and would, I am convinced, in the long run be an economy. I emphasise as strongly as I can that at the present moment a bold step is necessary. The Government must take their courage in both hands. Things have moved very fast since our recent discussions on these matters; and now they are moving faster still. Time is short, and the only way in which we can produce those formations which will answer the question of defence for these Islands is by getting as rapidly as possible a voluntary, highly-skilled Regular Army.
I should like to make perfectly clear our view, as put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton, on the question of conscription. It is just this: that as voluntary recruitment rises, so we need not have as many conscripts. In my opinion the question has nothing to do with the length of conscript service. At this moment the Army are getting many more conscripts than they can compete with, and the number of men being conscripted could be reduced by increasing voluntary recruitment. It is merely an extension of this principle which we on this side are seeking.
One of the chief difficulties of the Secretary of State and of the Minister of Defence is the worldwide commitments of the British Army. I fully sympathise with them on that and understand the difficulty, but will the right hon. Gentleman take a suggestion from me? We have lost the great Indian Army, but the right hon. Gentleman has a vast potential of manpower in East Africa with which he could replace that Indian Army. I took the trouble when I was out there to ask officers who commanded those men in battle alongside Indian troops whether or not they were as good and they said they were every bit as good provided they were well led. There is a vast wealth of potential manpower in those Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman will find great opposition from the local governors who are afraid that their financial resources will be curtailed if

anything like that is done, but in that way he could bring back into the areas surrounding these islands some of the troops so dispersed at the moment.
I spent the best years of my life in His Majesty's Army and it is an Army of which I am extremely proud, as are all of us who have served in it. I should like to pay tribute to the men we see now in the streets. How well turned out they are and how splendid is their bearing. In my view there is nothing wrong with the individual training at present, but are we not forgetting the higher formation training with live ammunition, without which individual training is useless and staff officers cannot deal with their staff as tactical officers do with their troops? If live ammunition is falling about, people are much more careful to cross the t's and dot the i's than when they play about on sand-tables in the ordinary way. I am addressing the House on these occasions with a view to benefiting the Service I love and endeavouring to prevent that initial loss of life which appears to be a habit with us. For once let us try to see whether we can put into the field an army properly and efficiently trained in any future conflict. I only do this as I believe it to be my bounden duty to do so in the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Perhaps I might draw attention to the fact that in proposing the Question I did not read out any of the words in the Amendment on the Order Paper after the word "defence" because they would be out of Order. It would be out of Order to discuss methods of recruitment of the Army.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: It might serve the convenience of hon. Members if I assisted to dispose of the Amendment so that we might return speedily to the main course of the Debate. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) for his graceful tribute to the officers and other ranks of the British Army. It is a well-deserved and well-merited tribute too frequently overlooked. We are accustomed to praise the Army in time of war and forget all about it in time of peace. I am always most willing to accept the assurance of the hon. and gallant Member that he did not speak in any partisan spirit and is


desirous of assisting me and my military colleagues on the Army Council. It is true that there is very little of politics in this matter. There is the question of financial provision, the matter of direction, the line of approach, matters of strategy, planning and the like, but on the subject of National Defence and the need for adequate National Defence, apart from a small and almost, one might say, insignificant minority—I do not mean intellectually, I am speaking numerically—we are united.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Where the right hon. Gentleman used to be.

Mr. Shinwell: That interruption affords me an opportunity which I hope you will permit me to take, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say that at no time in mycareer have I ever been a pacifist, not even in the 1914–18 War. I never was a conscientious objector.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the right hon. Gentleman serve?

Mr. Shinwell: It is true I did not serve, not that I was unwilling to serve, not that I did not offer my services; but as it happens—and probably this is being said for the first time and it was not my desire to tell the story—I was engaged in the seafaring business and was exempted, not at my request, but at the request of my union in order to undertake work which was regarded as work of national importance. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) can say that he knows better, but he was living in the innermost recesses of Wales while I was living in Scotland during the 1914–18 war, and he knows nothing whatever about the subject. I regret this digression but it is just as well that we should have the facts retailed, if only for the first time. That does not mean that I sought to invoke war at any time or wished to engage in any hostile action against any other nation or any other people. But there is a vast difference between the pacifism to which the hon. Member subscribes and the desire for peace which this party accepts in full and has accepted as a main principle of our policy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the right hon. Member must now leave that. The Amendment is very narrow and I must ask him to confine himself to it.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but if hon. Members will interrupt they must accept the reply. It is not a matter for me. Another matter to which I would like to refer is that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) earlier seemed to be at loggerheads with me on some matter which I did not fully comprehend. If he is apprehensive lest I propose to use notes for the purpose of this speech, I can assure him that I have not a single card up my sleeve. Perhaps that will satisfy and mollify him.
As you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this Debate is very much contracted and we are circumscribed by the rules of the House. Therefore, it is quite impossible for me to follow up every one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing. When we have returned to the general Debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for State will provide a complete reply.—[Interruption.]—He has gone out of the Chamber for much-needed refreshment. Other hon. Members got in on the ground floor before him, but he will return in due course not only refreshed in body but I hope refreshed intellectually, so that he can meet the challenge from hon. Members opposite.
Let us see exactly what is the main theme in this Amendment. It consists of two parts, one the subject of the Regular Army and the Reserve position, and the other the matter of equipment. They are very important subjects indeed. It is assumed by hon. and gallant Members opposite that if only we could build up a numerically strong Regular Army, we could to some extent dispense with National Service and meet our commitments. That is a complete fallacy.

Brigadier Head: Am I not correct in saying that in his speech earlier the right hon. Gentleman said, "In the future I hope that when voluntary recruiting becomes better we shall he able to diminish National Service"?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, the hon. and gallant Member is quite right. I referred to the future—not to the immediate future.

Brigadier Head: That is what we referred to.

Mr. Shinwell: We must be quite clear what we mean. It is precisely because there is considerable misunderstanding on this point that I must return to the subject. It is the theme which is associated with the Amendment before the House. If in the next few weeks—

Mr. Harold Macmillan: . Was not the Amendment about equipment?

Mr. Shinwell: I shall come to equipment if I may be permitted, but this is a very important matter and I understand that hon. and gallant Members who have attended the Debate throughout are most anxious to have a reply on this point.
If in the next few weeks, or indeed in the next few months, as a result of vast improvements in the conditions of Regular service—I am not permitted to deal with conditions of service, in accordance with the declaration by Mr. Deputy-Speaker—if as a result of increased pay by 25 per cent. or whatever it may be, or even the acceptance of what I must regard as the extravagant suggestions of the hon. Member for Leominster, if as a result of providing a long-service career in the Army or the provision of accommodation on a vast scale, we succeeded in recruiting the men required for the Regular Army, not up to the figure of 300,000 suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, but the figure of 250,000 suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), we should be unable to meet our overseas commitments. That is the first point. Secondly, we would be unable to train the new recruits for the simple reason that we should not have an adequate training organisation in the Regular Army itself to meet the situation. The fact of the matter is that to a very large extent we are inhibited in anything we do at present by the overseas commitments which we are bound to fulfil. That is the plain fact of the situation.
If we had no commitments in Austria and Trieste, if we had not a military mission in Greece, if we did not require to have a very large number of men in the British Army of the Rhine and a large number in the Middle East, Malaya, Africa and elsewhere, in addition to a vast number of men required in our training cadres, and over and above that a vast army of men engaged in the repair, reconditioning and maintenance of Army

vehicles associated with R.E.M.E. and the Ordnance and the like—if it were not for these varied and indeed colossal commitments imposed upon us, it would be a simple matter to build up a Regular Army. Perhaps it would not be quite as adequate as hon. and gallant Members opposite desire it to be, but at any rate it would be a Regular Army which we would be able to train adequately and efficiently and from which we would be able to provide some formations which could be made available at an early date. But the fact is that we are committed in the way I have indicated and as a result we are prevented from proceeding as hon. and gallant Members would wish us to do.

Brigadier Head: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, but the point we are concerned about is this: Supposing a great deal of voluntary recruitment to the Regular Army was stimulated, and those recruits were trained to be useful soldiers after a year or two, would that not increase the effectiveness and size of the Regular Army and allow commitments to be fulfilled and some diminution of the number of National Service men to be brought about?

Mr. Shinwell: That follows on what I have said myself, but I beg the House to note what has been said by more than one Member opposite, including the hon. Member for Leominster, that even 18 months is not long enough in which to train soldiers. If we recruit volunteers for the Regular Army, it will take 18 months, or longer, to train them. So we are thinking in terms not of the immediate future, the next few weeks or months—I would not go so far as to say the long-term—but rather of the intermediate term. That is the situation.
It is because of the vast commitments imposed upon us overseas and in the United Kingdom that it is essential to promote and utilise National Service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence no more likes 18 months' service than I do, but we have to accept the facts as they are; we cannot dispose of the realities of the situation by rhetoric or wishful thinking. Because of these commitments we must have 18 months' National Service and utilise a large number of National Service men, not in


the United Kingdom alone, but overseas. Eighteen months' service permits us to send the men not only to the British Army of the Rhine but to the Middle East, although I agree that the duration of service in that theatre is not so long as we would like it to be in the circumstances.
What about the reserve position, about which I was asked by the hon. Member for Leominster? I have already pointed out that we have a vast reserve in Classes Z and W. I admit that it is a diminishing asset; in the very nature of the case that must be so. A large number of men in Classes Z and W went into the Army at the beginning of the war. On the other hand, a considerable body of men in Class Z entered the Army after the end of the war. For example, those released in the last few weeks are Class Z men, and they are trained. If we require to call them up in an emergency we could do so, and we should have a large number of trained men at our disposal.
What about availability? I agree that it is no use talking about trained reserves unless there is machinery to hand to make them available. I need not go into detail in a Debate of this character, but I give the House an assurance that through the medium of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, in association with the Army—and this also applies to the other Services—the necessary machinery is "laid on" so that not only do we know where a large number of the men reside, not only have we available for them all the paraphernalia required in the event of call-up, but we are in a position to call up even the general body of men not immediately, but progressively, if trouble should unfortunately occur.

Major Tufton Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman know where these men are, or does he not?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to be pernickety about this matter. If we are dealing with three million men who have been in the Army during the war and since, and have now been released, obviously there is bound to be a great deal of wastage and movement from one place to another. As a result we have not been able to keep track of all their addresses, but we are

in a position to check the movements of a very substantial number. In the event of a Proclamation, if that is unfortunately required, we would avail ourselves of the usual machinery.

Major Beamish: I am sorry, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not understand me. What I meant was—is there some kind of registration for the Class Z Reserve? Does he know whether these reservists are in reserved occupations or does he not?

Mr. Shinwell: There is no registration for the Z Reserves. The men I have described are in the Class Z and the Class W Reserves. We have been able to keep track of a large number of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "All."] Have I to go into these details on an occasion of this sort? I should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite had sufficient intelligence to understand that in a matter of this sort we should not be caught unawares. On this question of Reserves I am not prepared to go so far as the hon. Member for Leominster, who said that before the war we had 114,000 Regular Reservists. I have been unable to check that figure. I could not check it, obviously, in the time at my disposal. I am accepting what he says, naturally, although I will look it up tomorrow to make sure—with great respect to the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that we have, I will not say adequate Reserves, but we are building up a body of Regular Reservists. It must not be forgotten that there is a Territorial' Army which itself is a Reserve Army.
On the question of equipment, I have been asked specific questions about the mortar position, about tanks and vehicles of various kinds. I said in my opening speech that we have a vast amount of material. I have myself been surprised at the amount of material in the possession of the Army. It is true, as some hon. Members have indicated, that we have disposed of a great mass of material. Incidentally we have disposed of some of it—this is the reply to one of my right hon. Friends—to friendly countries—Dominion and other friendly countries. It may well be, as I have ventured to suggest in my opening speech, that we shall dispose of more equipment which is surplus to our needs, always bearing in mind the possibility of stepping up pro-


duction. We may dispose of equipment to Western Union defence organisations. That is all in train. The matter has to be handled carefully, and with regard to the implications that are involved.
As regards the equipment itself, all that I am prepared to say is' that I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite not to suppose that we are seeking to conceal facts and information from them merely because we desire so to do, or because the situation is so bad that we are afraid to disclose the fact. That is far from being so. I think the best answer I could give them is that we have a vast amount of material in our reserves. I agree that not all of it is up-to-date and modern, because in the nature of things it could not be so. We could not switch the whole of our economy on to war-time production. That would have been absurd, and not even hon. Members opposite would have asked us to undertake a task of that magnitude. We have a vast amount of material at our disposal, but it wants balancing, I agree. We have that in train. I am very conscious myself that it wants balancing in relation to the Army we have and in relation to our present commitments, and so on.
We are spending, as my right hon. Friend indicated and provided for in his White Paper on Defence, in this next year for which the Estimates are presented, a vast sum of money, not only on research but on actual development.

Colonel Ropner: If we have this vast amount of material, including vehicles, why is it that the Territorial Army units are so woefully short of serviceable equipment with which to train? Why is it that searchlights are derelict, vehicles short, and the equipment that we get unserviceable? Why is it?

Mr. Shinwell: I must repudiate the allegation entirely. I regret very much that hon. Members opposite, who are so anxious to assist us in the Territorial Army recruiting campaign, should make statements and speeches which are very dangerous.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that we do not make statements like this unless we have seen these things with our

own eyes? I could take him and show him what we mean by this.

Colonel Ropner: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me again? It is the facts that are stopping recruiting, not the statements we make.

Mr. Shinwell: All I can say is this, and it is a challenge to hon. Members opposite—let them produce the facts. Let me have them at the War Office. If they exist, it will be easier for hon. Members to present them. I will give them an assurance that I will inquire into every allegation that is submitted. I have myself gone round the country, and one of my stock questions to commanding officers and other officers of Territorial units is: "What about your equipment?" Last week, I had the privilege of opening two Territorial centres in the Midlands, and I found the officers and men most enthusiastic, I am glad to say. On the subject of equipment, they had no complaints, but they did complain about the capacity of the accommodation to absorb the equipment.
I agree that some of the T.A. units have not got the most up-to-date equipment; for example, in radar and so on. Of course, I do not pretend, neither does my right hon. Friend, that we are fully equipped with the most modern radar mechanism, but we have got a fair amount of it. The T.A. units are being equipped, at any rate, to enable them to undertake normal training. If the hon. and gallant Member, who is himself associated very closely with the Territorial Army, will give me the information, I will undertake to go into it very carefully, but I repeat that, on the subject of equipment, these matters are being very closely watched.
We are spending a vast sum of money on research and development, but surely hon. Members will agree that, before we proceed to actual development in a certain range of equipment, it is very wise to undertake very careful research. We do not want to be speeding up production of some article of equipment only to discover in 12 months or two years that it is obsolescent. We must exercise great caution in these matters, and hon. Members would rightly castigate us if we speeded up production and discovered that the equipment was out-of-date in a short time.
There is only one other point, and it is this. We have been asked about the Western Union defence organisation and what we are doing about it, and also about questions of strategy, a subject which I do not understand at all. I make no claim to any knowledge of military strategy. I leave it to hon. Members opposite, who are fully acquainted with the subject, and I have no doubt that the Chiefs of Staff Committee, who will read the Debate, will avail themselves of the knowledge which has been laid before them. [Interruption.] There is no humour in that at all. This I would say. The Chiefs of Staff Committee, which comprises high ranking officers of high calibre, probably as good as any we can produce—[Interruption.] If the noble Lord will permit me—

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly reasonable reference to my hon. and gallant Friends behind me, some of whom have the finest war records of anybody in this House, but they were jeered at by the right hon. Gentleman's supporters behind him.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry. At any rate, I am not jeering at hon. and gallant Members opposite who have fine war records. Why should we jeer at them? And there are hon. Members on this side who have fine war records. We will leave it at that. I want to make this point because I think the House should hear it, not because I make it but because it is desirable that they should. We have in the Chiefs of Staff men of high calibre, high qualification and world-wide reputation. We have them in the Army, in the Navy, and in the Air Force, and we are proud of them. In their respective categories they are doing splendid work. They understand the question of strategy. In this matter of Western Union defence there is Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery and a staff provided for him by the War Office. I have not the least doubt that their services and their qualities are being fully utilised to the best advantage. There I must leave it.
On the subject of the Regular Army, I say that, in the circumstances, we are doing all that is possible. As regards resources, although I do not pretend that the position is as satisfactory as we should like it to be, I think that, in all the circumstances, the position cannot be re-

garded as too bad. Of course, it is under review all the time. In the matter of equipment, there are the resources at our disposal, and there is this vast plan of research and development which will advantage us in the event of trouble emerging in the course of time. If time is not on our side, then as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, on innumerable occasions, we must tight with what we have got.

Brigadier Head: As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Chiefs of Staff, may I make one brief comment? Would he not agree that it is for the Chiefs of Staff to recommend strategy and the course of action, and that it is then entirely the responsibility of the Government whether or not their recommendation is implemented? The fear of many of us on this side is that the correct course advocated may not be implemented, owing to reluctance to take decisions which are politically unacceptable.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that question, and even the discussion on strategy, is going rather wide on a very narrow Amendment.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I very much resent the insinuation. It is quite untrue.

Mr. Baldwin: In order to widen the Debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Now that the Debate has again been widened, I must just comment, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), on a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to the effect that he himself was not interested in strategy, and knew nothing about it.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I did not say I was not interested; I merely laid no claim to a knowledge of the subject.

Mr. Low: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was very nearly in as good a position as his right hon. Friend sitting next to him to have gained


some knowledge of this subject by now. It has been the feeling of a good many of us that there has been no direction of the Defence Services. As the right hon. Gentleman was addressing us earlier this afternoon, I began to feel that he really was beginning to have control of the Army machine. He made a statement about the needs and difficulties of the Army which was easy to follow and which was quite clear. But now he tells us that this matter of strategy, which, after all, is the purpose for which we vote him this money—we do not give it in order to educate people, but in order that he shall create an operational force to fight on land—is something about which he knows nothing.
I think that in the exuberance of trying to score a point over some of us who try without the advice which he has at his disposal, to contribute to the important Debates on the Defence Services, he went a little beyond what he would like to read, when he comes to read HANSARD tomorrow morning. In the course of his remarks, too, he referred to the fact that Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery was at the head of the Committee for Western Union Defence and would, of course, work all things out. The inference I drew from that was that he would give the right hon. Gentleman advice, but I understood that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery was not responsible to any right hon. Gentleman sitting on that Front Bench. I thought he was responsible to the Defence Ministers as a whole under the Brussels Pact.

Mr. Shinwell: I am being asked a question and I must elucidate this point. The question is, what about the Western Union defence organisation? My answer is that, first of all, I cannot go into detail, and secondly, that there are high ranking officers who are, if you like, seconded from the War Office to the Western Union defence organisation and we trust them not only to safeguard the interests of this country but to promote the best interests of Western Union defence.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: But this is a Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Low: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making exactly the remark I myself was going to make. Surely that is the point. The reason why

I am starting my remarks by referring to Western Union is that it is necessary to emphasise over and over again in this House, when we discuss the defence matters on all three Services, that there is a definite purpose for which this money is voted, and I think the right hon. Gentleman really agrees with me.
As a background to what I have to say, I would refer the House to what I thought was a most excellent speech by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) earlier this afternoon. He tried to concentrate the attention of the House on the realities of the present situation. I notice that the Secretary of State for War is now amused, but I thought he tended to be a little embarrassed during the course of the hon. and learned Member's speech. In referring the House to that speech, I would like also to mention the fact that the hon. and learned Member, in trying to build up a picture of what he thought we might require for Western Union defence—and after all, he like ourselves is without the expert advice which the right hon. Gentleman has—was able to give to the House the exact number of divisions he thought Holland and Belgium and France might have, but he was not able, nor did he think it right, to give to the House the number of divisions that this country might have.
It is a most extraordinary thing that in this House we had the Minister of Defence a few months ago giving the strength of American bombers in this country. He would not dream of giving the strength of British bombers in this country. We have got into a most extraordinary position. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), with all the sense of responsibility of a Member speaking in this House, got up and told the world what he thinks the Belgians and the Dutch have, but he would not dare to tell the world what he thinks we have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] "Quite right," say hon. Members opposite, but it is a most extraordinary position. It is either done on purpose to emphasise the extraordinary nature of the position to which we have been driven by this security drive, or I imagine it is done to force a comment from the Front Bench on whether or not the figures given are quite right.

Mr. Paget: Of course there is a difficulty when you are speculating about your own country. You may speculate about other countries but you may be disclosing private information, confidential information about your own country, and therefore I feel it is more legitimate to speculate about other countries, as to which you have no confidential information, than to talk about your own.

Mr. Low: I will leave that matter there, except to round off my comments in regard to security by reminding the House that the right hon. Gentleman told us that if he were to give us information as to our operational strength it would mislead the House but not the enemy. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at what he said in HANSARD I do not think he will be very pleased, and neither will the Minister of Defence.
The theme throughout this Debate and the theme which entered into the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, has been the need to get niore Regulars. The theme has been the need to get more Regular recruits for without Regular recruits, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) so ably showed, we cannot have an Army of a sufficient standard of operational preparedness. It is not possible with the present low size of the Regular Army—that is about 175,000—to build up a modern Army to a sufficient state of readiness. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will probably agree; but what is he doing about it? He is doing absolutely nothing. He knows perfectly well now, by the results, that the recent increases in pay, which have been described in various terms, are not satisfactory enough These increases in pay have not resulted in raising the rate of recruiting. In fact it is the reverse.
The rate of recruiting is dropping, and the rate of wastage of officers and other ranks is going up. The right hon. Gentleman gave me the figures for officers for January this year. The wastage is at the annual rate of over 800, compared with 700 last year, and 500 the year before. We have not yet asked him for the figures of wastage of warrant officers and N.C.Os. which are just as important. It would appear from the figures of wastage which can be deduced from the statement on defence, given by the Minister of Defence, that the position is just as bad there. What is going to happen?
Even supposing that the wastage does not go up and the recruiting does not drop, we shall not get the Regular strength of the Army up to 250,000 until mid-1952 and not up to 200,000 until mid-1950. That is too far off. There is a need for more Regulars at once, and we are entitled to ask hon. Members opposite what they are going to do to get more Regulars. I should like that answer given tonight, if it is possible for the Government to give it. I would remind the Government that it is bound to cost money, and that it will cost more money now than it would have done if some action had been taken immediately after the war. Immediately after the war, the Government were faced with a situation in which it was apparent that there were going to be too few Regulars in the Army, unless something was done. They should have known that it was impossible to run the Army without at least 220,000 if not 250,000 Regulars, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we need to raise the ceiling at the present time to 300,000. In 1946, they could have seen the situation as it has developed. They did nothing then, and it is because they did nothing then that they have to pay more for it now.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I do not understand the argument. The argument is that nothing was done immediately after the war, but in fact something was done immediately after the war. The pay code of 1945 which became operative in 1946, was not the only solution, because there have also been actual increases of rates of pay since, and the promise has been fulfilled of adjusting those rates to the current rate position. It is preposterous, under the camouflage of trying to help recruitment, continuously to be understating what has been done in building up better conditions for the Services.

Mr. Low: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would deny the fact that it was not priority No. 1 in the Government's Army policy after the war to rebuild the Regular Army. I am quite certain that it was not. The right hon. Gentleman told us that very little was done immediately after the war about married quarters, and we can see that from the Estimates. There might have been quite good reasons for that, but if the building up of the Regular Army had been priority No. 1 they would have


been got over. As to the Pay Code, the right hon. Gentleman is at fault in regard to the improvements in the rates of pay. If he will compare the rates of pay in the 1946 Pay Code with the rates of pay that were previously in force, with war service increments and so on, he will see that the new rates were less in aggregate. I think he will find that to be so. Certainly in the case of officers, by the taxation of allowances, most of them are far worse off. The right hon. Gentleman must not produce that as an argument to show the wonderful things he did for the Regular Army, because it is just not so. The right hon. Gentleman said quite audibly, "We will settle it afterwards." I do not know where we shall settle it.

Mr. Alexander: The hon. Member has quoted words that he says were audible, but they were not used by me, and I do not want it to go on record that I used them.

Mr. Low: I ask the Government to tell us what they are going to do to get more Regulars and to lessen the rate of wastage from the Regular Army. Obviously, that is the thing that really matters today. I would remind the House that last year the Secretary of State told us it was the Government's policy to have a "striking reserve" in the Army. Where is that striking reserve? Has it gone to Malaya, or where is it? I am not certain that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us it is in existence. It is quite clear that the Government have not achieved at any rate that part of their intentions.
I now pass to a word or two about equipment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he tells us how difficult it is to strike a balance between research and development on the one hand and weapons in production and in use on the other. I thought that he rather overemphasised the importance of research and development, and for my part I should like to emphasise the importance of having the weapons in the hands of the people who are to use them so that they can understand all about them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) pointed out that less money is being spent on radio and radar than last year. That seems to run counter to what the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day.
I should also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is really satisfied that £13½ million is being properly spent on looking after the worn out, slightly derelict vehicles that have to be attended to in order to bring them back into use again. Does that not show how expensive it is to live on one's fat? To this £13½ million has to be added a similar sum from the year before. A sum of £27 million in two years has been spent on looking after vehicles, which is equivalent to the 1946 or 1947, total expenditure on warlike stores, which is wholly wrong. It suggests that the Army must be lacking in new post-war equipment. Where are the new tanks? Are there any new anti-tank guns which can pierce the latest tank the Russians can put into the field? Those are the questions we should be discussing tonight. They bear some resemblance to the issues dealt with on the Naval Estimates a few nights ago, when we debated antisubmarine warfare and the weapons needed for it. We should have information on the matters which I have mentioned. All we want is an assurance from the Government. We do not want particulars of the new guns or tanks. We want to know that everything is all right.
I am fully aware that I have occupied longer than I thought I would, but this was because of interruptions. I must return to the background which was put to us with so much emphasis by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton and also in his most admirable speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton. It is no use going into the Atlantic Pact, Western Union defence, British Commonwealth Defence arrangements, which might include defence arrangements for the Indian Ocean or in the Far East, unless we can assure our friends that we have the land forces available at once for operations. It has been made quite clear from all sides of the House that we are not getting the operational formations under the present schemes. Since we are now faced with signing more of these pacts we must work out the obligations more closely. The Government have a duty to assure us that they are going to do something in the next few months to provide British land forces with operational formations in a state of readiness. I ask for an assurance on that point. Obviously we


cannot get large formations ready at this moment, but I want an assurance that in the next few months something is going to be done to produce those formations.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I have listened carefully to all the speeches so far in this Debate, and I find it hard to make up in my own mind which is the greatest menace to the peace of the world, the belligerent pacifism of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the pacific militarism of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) or the belligerent militarism of the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low). I am inclined to think that the hon. Member for North Blackpool is perhaps the greatest menace. Every speaker so far has been asking for something more. Some have been wanting more married quarters at home, some have been wanting more married quarters overseas, some have been wanting more modern equipment, some have been wanting better walking-out dress. I think the only hon. Member who has spoken so far who did not want anything more was the hon. and gallant Member for Perth, who wanted to do without berets, but, of course, we would have to think of something else to put in their place.
I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is here because, as he was speaking in what I thought was a most reasonable way, he reminded me of a former commanding officer of mine. As I looked at him sitting there in his civilian clothes, lovable, benevolent and kindly, I thought perhaps he was the right kind of commanding officer who would encourage recruiting. When, however, he went on to discipline, I imagined him in his kilts or full Black Watch regalia wearing one of those large moustaches, which he has not got at the moment, and it was such a fearsome spectacle that I do not think I would have liked to serve under him in that garb.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member would have been all right.

Mr. Chetwynd: The one point that emerges from all the speeches so far is that we are still in a state of transition. We can never get back to the kind of peace-time formation that existed before the last war. I do not think that is ever

again a possibility—at least I hope it will not be. Also we are still too near the war itself for people to think of rushing into the Army by offers of a 25 per cent. increase in pay, better conditions and so on. As a nation, we are still anti-militarist. We are not enamoured of rushing into military formations until the need is right upon us, and we are still not sure that there is that need. In so far as that is true, much of the Debate has been of an academic nature.
Another point is that we are restricted in what we can do by the state of our national finances and economy. If we had to do everything that has been asked for today, we should need a budget for the Army 10 times greater than it is at present. Obviously, with the compelling nature of the export drive which must have our first priority at this stage, we cannot be any more generous or ambitious than we are in these Estimates.
I do not want to go into the realms of strategy because on this side I can safely leave that to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He started off with an assumption that a war with Russia is inevitable in the near future, and that is an assumption which I cannot share, though it certainly would alter my attitude towards these Estimates if it were so.

Mr. Paget: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting, I have already repudiated that. All I have said is that I do not think it probable, I do not think it likely, but it is the only possible thing, and, if we are to have an Army at all, we might as well prepare for every possibility for which we may need it.

Mr. Chetwynd: I do not take such a pessimistic view of the situation. I think that, with proper guidance on both sides, such a situation could be avoided.
I want to ask one or two questions of my hon. and gallant Friend, but before doing so I must say that last year I was acting as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Of course nothing that I have to say has any relation to anything which I might have gathered in that capacity last year. I want to ask him about the dispositions. I see in Vote A that we have some 337,000 British troops


in the United Kingdom and Europe and 79,000 elsewhere. In the White Paper there is a statement that the extra six months on National Service will make it possible for the War Office to employ men further afield. Where can these men go where they are not going now? How much farther will the extra six months enable them to go than the Mediterranean to contribute any useful service at all? I cannot see that the extra six months will be of any use whatever, apart from Germany and perhaps the nearer Mediterranean stations. It would not be an economic proposition to send them any farther. Can my hon. Friend break down that figure to show how many National Service men are serving in each theatre? I believe that a few went to Malaya, but they were not serving a fixed term, whereas now they are coming in for 18 months. If we are to get this in a proper perspective we ought to know where it is proposed to send these people other than where they are going at present.
The other point I want to make concerns medical categories and the use of civilian labour. On the Third Reading of the National Service (Amendment) Bill on 6th December last, the Secretary of State for War, referring to the surplus of National Service men available for service, said that:
It may … be possible to remove … that surplus, by raising the standard—not only the medical standard but the general standard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 190.]
What are the implications of that statement? It seems to me that if the War Office and the other Armed Forces are to raise their medical standards, many people who ought to serve will be excluded from service on medical grounds. That will cause great disturbance amongst others who are called up for service. For instance, one man may be called up for service, whilst his next-door neighbour, perhaps of the same age and background, will probably escape military service because he happens to be in a slightly lower medical category. If we persist in this method to any gerat extent, it will break down the universal idea of National Service. After all, that was one of the main reasons why many of us on this side supported National Service when it was introduced. I should like some further

information about this, and to know whether there is to be any radical alteration in medical categories.
Provisions are being made for the extended use of civilians. I am convinced, however, that by a proper use of manpower much of the civilian labour with the Forces could be replaced by lower category National Service people. This would be a better use of manpower and would allow civilians to go into the really essential civilian industries.
The next point I wish to touch upon, and which seems fundamental in our acceptance of these Estimates, concerns the utilisation of the manpower which is available and how far it is proceeding along the right lines. In other words, is there as much misuse of time in the Armed Forces as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War admitted in speaking on the National Service (Amendment) Bill on 1st December, when he said:
The House is entitled to know, when we ask for men, that they are being used efficiently.
Later he said:
The British Army of today, for several reasons—I am very frank with the House—is receiving less training than it should and could have. … Nearly everybody is engaged on a task of one kind or another, everybody is doing something; the question is are they doing the right thing?"—[OFFICIAL REPORL 1st December, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 2119–20.]
I think the general understanding of the House at the time was that large numbers of personnel were not doing the right thing.
I was a little disturbed by the vagueness of my right hon. Friend's allusions today to the working parties on the use of manpower. When we contrast these remarks with the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who, in his speech on the Navy Estimates, in dealing with the number of ratings who have been transferred from administrative duties to duties at sea, gave the specific figure of 2,500 men who had been combed out by their manpower committee; when we compare this with the vague kind of assurance that, "All is going well in the Army," we have no reason to be entirely satisfied. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would serve a very useful purpose if he would give us more specific details of what his manpower economy survey teams are doing.
How far is the scheme for release by purchase having any substantial effect on the Armed Forces There are considerable exemptions from this, I know, and many tradesmen are not allowed to purchase their release, but I was disturbed a few weeks ago to see the number of resignations of Regular officers. They seemed to be out of all proportion to the needs of the Regular services and, if the demand for release by purchase in other ranks is the same, it is bound to have a serious effect. Yet it seems unfair if officers can resign for whatever reason, while many who would desire to purchase release are debarred from doing so by regulation, or because they cannot find sufficient money for doing so.
We shall have further opportunities to press these matters, but the one thing of which we should make certain today is that we are getting value for money. We do not object to giving the sum asked for, provided we are assured that it is being put to useful and proper purposes and, listening to my right hon. Friend, I am convinced that he has a real grip on the situation in spite of the criticisms which have been made by hon. Members opposite, and I think we should congratulate him.

9.57 p.m.

Earl Winterton: This Front Bench has frequently been criticised in recent weeks, not only by hon. Members opposite but by hon. Members on this side of the House, but it cannot be said that in the course of today's Debate that it has taken an undue amount of time, because this is the first occasion, nearly 10 o'clock, on which anyone has risen from this bench to make some observations on the very important question before the House.
I would commence by saying that the Secretary of State for War and I, to use a vulgar phrase, "got across each other" in the course of his observations. I may say—and I think there is no breach of confidence, although the right hon. Gentleman is temporarily outside the Chamber—that he and I have had some private conversation and I assured him and assure the House, that, while naturally neither I nor any other of my hon. Friends have any political good will towards him, we have the utmost good will towards him in the very onerous and responsible task he has of being

responsible for an Army which can fight, and it is on those lines that I propose to make a few observations.
A short time ago, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when your deputy was in the Chair in Committee, he no doubt quite properly criticised me for making a reflection on the Committee as a whole because I said it made a bad impression on my mind. Therefore, presumably, it is out of Order for me to say that the House has made a good reflection on my mind. 1 will only say tonight with the assent of hon. Members on both sides of the House that we have had a number of very useful contributions to the Debate.
As always happens in Estimates Debates, the Debate has necessarily been somewhat ragged. That is not a criticism of hon. or right hon. Members' speeches. They have raised matters which are of importance and interest to constituents or to themselves, and we have had a number of matters of the kind dealt with and I have made a note of them. On the important question of officers' pay, especially junior officers' pay, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Defence, whom I am very pleased to see present, that on this side of the House not for any party reasons, but for other reasons, we are not satisfied with the improvements made in the course of the last six months, which we think are not sufficient for the purpose. I do not want to enter a long dissertation on facts and figures, but the situation is that the young man of talent and ambition who has a desire to enter an honourable service feels that, as far as pay and conditions are concerned, he is worse off if he is a young officer in the Army than he would be in many other professions.
In that connection I would point out to the House a matter which surely cannot be unpopular with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is not unpopular with us. We have not today in the ranks of the junior officers in the Army the type of young officer that we had in the old days who was educated at a public school. Mainly we have men who are dependent upon their pay for their existence. Though I know that he cannot give any specific promise on this matter, I ask the Under-Secretary when he replies at any rate to give us an undertaking that this


question of junior officers, and indeed senior N.C.O.s also, which has been dealt with from both sides of the House tonight, will receive further consideration from the Government.
The next point of importance made in the course of the Debate was the matter of housing for officers and other ranks. Here I will say quite frankly, even at the risk of being jeered at by hon. Gentlemen opposite—they would be perfectly entitled to jeer—that the question of the housing of the troops and of officers and N.C.O.s has been neglected not by one Government, not by a Socialist or a Tory Government, but literally for hundreds of years. I am trying to put this matter on a non-party basis, and I say that that is no reason whatever why we should not try to tackle it today. I make the most earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see if he cannot accelerate the provision of housing for officers. I know the difficulties. I am given to understand—I will be corrected by the Under-Secretary if my contention is wrong—that in the whole of the London Command there are only something like between 20 and 30 houses available for married officers. That is not a situation that ought to be allowed to continue.
The third point of importance was the question of whether or not we could have some universal system by which Territorials, both officers and men, should lose nothing either in the matter of holidays, salary or pay by being members of the Territorial Army. I think that was a point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) in a speech which I thought contained very many good points. Here again, from an entirely non-party view, I would urge this point upon the Government.
The fourth point which I noted that came out in the course of the Debate was the most important question put from both sides of the House of the employment of Regular soldiers after their period of service. As I said before the Secretary of State for War returned to the House, having "got across" him in the earlier stages of this Debate, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite and I sometimes do "get across" each other, I should like to pay this tribute. I should like to say that with the energy which he has frequently

displayed in public life I cannot help feeling that if he would put his heart into it, and if the Minister of Defence would put his heart into it, we could have a far better system than we have today for the employment of men after they have finished their service. I consider that the first priority in Government employment, making all allowance for their age—and I know the difficulty about age—should be for Regular ex-Service men. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have done what I should describe as good work in the negotiations which they have had with the trade unions in regard to tradesmen and men of that kind, but I should like to see this matter carried further.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) opened the Debate for the Opposition and I think in the opinion of both sides of the House he did it most admirably. We on this side of the House appreciate the generous attitude taken by hon. Gentlement opposite towards that speech. More than one hon. Member has praised it. My hon. and gallant Friend, with a very considerable war knowledge, a very fine war record and a considerable knowledge of the inner workings, suggested properly and much to the purpose that a great many of the duties performed even today by soldiers might be performed by civilian labour. The whole of that civilian labour should consist of ex-Regular soldiers. Those were four of the main points dealt with in this Debate.
But after all—and here I am about to come to the valuable contribution made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—the purpose of an Army, strange as it may seem—I am not being sarcastic; I am far too old a Member ever to attempt to be sarcastic, and besides it is dangerous—is to fight. The reason why we are passing these Estimates tonight, the reason why the Government, which is a Government of the Left and a naturally pacifist Government, have introduced a system of conscription in peace-time, is because there is need of an Army to fight in certain circumstances. It is on that matter that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House are in grave doubt about the policy of the Government. We do not believe that the system which has


been adopted, rightly or wrongly—the present system of conscription—will give us an Army which is fit to fight.
There were one or two significant references in the Secretary of State's speech to this question. I would say, in parenthesis, that every other consideration except the consideration of whether we have an Army fit to carry out the purpose for which it is intended is mere fustian and fudge. I attempted to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in his opening speech, and now I must ask the Under-Secretary the same question. I want the House to accept this fact—I am grateful for the way in which it is treating this most serious question—that it is not a matter which concerns us alone in this House tonight. It concerns the populations and legislatures of every country in Western Europe which is concerned with the Atlantic Pact. I have not the least doubt that not merely the members of those Governments but the members of the public of those countries will be following closely the course of this Debate. The Secretary of State said—and I noted his words carefully at the time—that this country had to fill its alloted role under the Western European Pact. What my right hon. and hon. Friends, including the Leader of the Opposition, and I have been trying to get at for months past is what is the allotted role for our Army under the Western European Pact?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Shame.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member naturally says "Shame" because he is in opposition to the policy of the Government, but let me tell him that he is in opposition to the view of 99 per cent. of the people of this country. I am not concerned about his views; I am concerned with the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that we had to fill our allotted role under the Western European Pact. I would like to point out, although I must be careful in case I get out of Order, the extraordinary discrepancy between these Estimates and the Navy Estimates. The Navy Estimates gave in general the number of ships available. In the case of the Army, we have not been officially informed, for the first time in peacetime during four years since the war was over, what is the size of the

Army and what is the combatant force of that Army. That is really a most extraordinary situation. That information must have been given to foreign Governments. Otherwise Field-Marshal Montgomery's position would be impossible. He is there to co-ordinate Western Union defences on behalf of His Majesty's Government and he must have told the governments of other countries concerned the number of divisions we could put into the field in that connection. Otherwise his appointment would be farcical.
We got a pretty sinister indication from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman of the weakness of what I would call the battle formation, if that be the correct term, of the number of brigades and of divisions which are suitable and which could go into battle, suppose war broke out tomorrow. He said that up till now, as I understood him—and he will correct me if I am wrong no doubt —that training was taking place up to the height of battalion training. Am I correct?

Mr. Shinwell: From unit to battalion training.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman is pretty quick on the uptake. I hope I am fairly quick, but I am not as quick as he. The obvious inference to be drawn from what he has said, as most hon. Gentlemen will know, is that we have not brigades or divisions in this country on a battle footing. That is the only inference we could draw from it. Otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would not have used that phrase. He also went on to say that in the autumn certain tactical exercises were going to take place. Only tactical. Those of us who have the information which many of us have at the present time will be aware that this tactical exercise is only a paper exercise.
It means, in other words, that no manoeuvres have taken place though for four years we have been at peace and for four years we have had a conscript Army. That is an indication of the state of our armed force. Is that a compliment to the way in which this Government have managed things? I cannot say that it is. I do not want to make a party point. I would only hope that before next year's Estimates come


on we shall be able to get more information on these matters and that we shall not be told that training takes place only on a battalion basis.
Let me come back again to this question of the Western front. One or two hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), who has recently come into the House, will no doubt take exception to what I am going to say, but let the House of Commons which, irrespective of party is an honest and straightforward place, accept a fact when they know that it is a fact. The only possible enemy on a big scale which we might have to fight on a big scale in the next four or five years is the Soviet Union and its satellite States. Before the war the British Army performed duties for the defence of India, but India has gone. It did similarly in the defence of Malaya after the Japs had ceased to be in the entente and had become a possible enemy. Now there is only one possible enemy. I do not say a probable enemy. I agree with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I think that the way in which he put the matter was perfectly accurate.
So far as Western Europe is concerned, the only enemy we have to consider is Soviet Russia. I say this with all earnestness and sincerity: in all the long years I have been in the House I have never been in a sense more perturbed about our military defences than I am at the present time, because four years—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about 1939?"]—I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In 1939 we had at least four divisions which we could put into the field, and there was a French Army in being. Rightly or wrongly, and as it proved wrongly, that French Army was believed by the French, and to some extent by ourselves, to be able to defend the Rhine. We have no French Army today, and, so far as I know, we have not got those four divisions. That is the situation. It is not a party question at all, and I will meet the hon. Gentleman to this extent at the risk of being jeered at in the speech in reply to mine, because I entirely agree, as a one-time member of the Government, that before the war, there were many serious defects in our defences when war broke out, just as there were in 1914.

I put it form the military point of view, vis-a-vis the enemy We have in mind, that we have never been in a weaker position than we are today.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Mr. Platts-Mills rose—

Earl Winterton: Those are the points which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. There may be a great deal to be said at this particular stage for not disclosing the exact strength of the Army. I am not sufficient of a military expert to know, but I hope I am not making a party point when I say that the obvious inference to be drawn from this complete lack of information as to the force capable of fighting in Western Europe is that it is not yet in existence.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton described the sort of situation that may arise in Western Europe, and what makes this situation even more grim—and on this subject many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have greater knowledge and experience than I have—is that, not only are we in this position, but I have no reason to suppose that most of the Western European countries are any better off. What an astonishing position it is that we are here in the House of Commons discussing the Army Estimates, while the main question cannot be discussed, because we cannot get any information. We have not the least idea what the plan for the defence of Western Europe is—not the least information about it. I was very glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Northampton say that he had, with a small group of others, been pressing these considerations upon the Government. They will have to be decided at some time or other, because the lives of everyone in this House and of every man, woman and child in this country may depend upon a proper solution of this question.
I would like to say further—and this is merely an individual point of view and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side—that, coming down to the details of what our contribution should be, in view of the situation, we should have to be fit to fight in the sense that we should have organised, armed and disciplined forces in sufficient numbers to supply, sometime within the next year, a least a corps, preferably an Army, that is, three corps, able to take part in war


on the continent of Europe. With some background of knowledge of foreign affairs over the last 40 years I am prepared to tell the House of Commons that, unless we can make some such contribution as I have described, Western European military defence will be a farce. If the Russians advance, then, indeed, the terrible eventuality which I understand is visualised in some friendly quarters—in the United States—may arise that Western Europe should be abandoned and that our defence line should be the line of the Pyrenees will come true. That vast responsibility rests upon the Government.
I am not prepared at this moment—because that is a question for my Leader to deal with after he has had his consultations with the Prime Minister—to press further than I have already done for some indication of the numbers. But I am entitled to put on record my profound concern and alarm, which are shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House, at the lack of information and at the apparent inability of conscription in peacetime to provide an Army capable of performing a task such as we have to perform in Western Europe if the very worst happens.
In the event of war we and our Allies either try to hold Western Europe or we do not. If we do not try to hold Western Europe then what on earth is the reason for having conscription in peace time? Either conscription gives us an Army which is capable of fighting, or it does not. If we cannot produce such an Army and if indeed the plan of the Allied Governments is to retreat to the line of the Pyrenees, then let us do away with conscription and have a small, highly paid British Army capable of defending these shores.
There, again, we have singularly little information from the Government. I do not know, and none of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side know, what in the calamitous event—and it might happen at any time; I hope it will not—of the cold war in Berlin turning into actual war—we have been given no information in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—are the preparations for home defence in this country, anti-aircraft guns, provision against gas, or anything that may be used by the enemy. We have been told nothing about it at all. We on this

side are most anxious to assist the Government. At the risk of getting into trouble with some of my hon. Friends who, unlike myself, are of a very aggressive nature, I would say that we see some courage in the Government in being prepared, in view of their surroundings, to defend conscription in peacetime. But we get no information at all, and until we get it the country and this House must be in a state of perturbation. I hope before next year, or even much earlier, we shall have from the Government a far more exact account—and, I might say, from the Minister of Defence upon whom the prime responsibility rests—than we have had in the course of the Debate this afternoon.

10.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): We have had a wide Debate covering many questions of detail and many questions of general principle. As is the accepted custom, those points of detail to which I am not able to reply in the course of my speech, I will take up individually later with the hon. Members who raised them.
On the question of general principle, it was natural and realistic that many hon. Members should in the course of their speeches refer to both Western Union and the Atlantic Pact, and often put the question in the direct form in which the noble Lord put it—what, precisely, was to be the nature of the contribution made by this country to the defence of Western Europe, and how capable were we of performing whatever might be required of us immediately or in the immediate future? I think that the noble Lord himself, and hon. Members in all parts of the House, will realise that it has been made clear on more than one occasion by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that when the Government say that there is certain information that they are not in a position to disclose to this House, that is not because they desire, for any partisan or unworthy reason, to withhold that information, but because we have the most excellent reasons based on experience for believing that much of the information that is asked for on these particular topics could not be disclosed without serious danger to the national interest. It was, of course, with that in mind that my right hon. Friend the Prime


Minister recently made the reference to conversations between himself and the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
But there is very much that is of importance that we can discuss and on which I hope to be able to give the House some information, because it will be generally agreed, as was suggested, in perhaps another context, by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), that one of the most important things we shall contribute to Western Union is our example. Whatever may be the plans that are arranged, if it were assumed by the countries of Western Europe that this nation would not take the necessary steps, or was incapable of doing so, that would be disastrous to any plans that might be forged on paper. Anything we say, therefore, about the shape, equipment, efficiency and morale of our own Army has a direct bearing on whatever part it might be required to play in Western Union.
May I first say something about what one might call the general shape of the Army? We have today to think about the Regular element, the National Service element, the Territorial Army and the Colonial and Gurkha Forces. The first and crucial question raised has been the position of National Service: what part ought it to play and what is the proper relationship between the National Service and Regular elements? That was raised very forcibly by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), and I join with other hon. Members in expressing my admiration of the speech with which he opened the Debate after my right hon. Friend had concluded his speech. The same theme was taken up vigorously by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler).
In the first place, it will be agreed that there is no doubt at all as to the necessity for National Service or its present duration at the moment. While we may discuss the possibility or desirability of reducing it in the future, there is no doubt as to its present necessity. In that connection I might answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the

Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) who asked where the 18 months National Service men could be sent. The answer, of course, is that there is no legal bar against their being sent to any theatre, and it may well be that they will be used in any theatre.
We could not give any firm guarantee that there is any theatre from which they are excluded. It is true that they will be serving a shorter term than some of the National Service men now in the Army—those on a longer term than was originally intended for National Service men joining this year—but if we had kept to the 12 months rather than the 18-months period it would seriously have restricted the number of theatres in which they could be used. At the same time, I assure the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees that it is not intended to make any radical change in the medical standards for acceptance, nor any change that would involve a major change of principle in National Service.
If it be accepted that National Service is essential at the present time, I would go on to put the point that National Service for some period is, I think, regarded as necessary in any circumstances by most of the hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate, because even if we do not use these men as we are using them now, to perform duties normally performed by Regular soldiers, we still have a use for National Service as a way of providing a trained Reserve. If that be so, we still require some of our Regulars to train these men. I suggest to the House that if all that is thought of is a reduction in the length of National Service—say, a reduction at some future date to 12 or six months—that would not seriously reduce the training commitment imposed upon the Regular Forces. The idea that by reducing National Service in that way one would lift the millstone from the neck of the Regular Army is mistaken. The training commitment would remain very much the same in the number of men it consumed.
If it is suggested that we should have a far smaller number of National Service men, that would reduce the training commitment; but it would mean introducing very definitely the principle of selective service in a very high degree. It would radically alter the nature of our National


Service. Since it is a difficult matter to make changes of this kind immediately, it does not, I suggest, serve any useful purpose to canvass and discuss hypothetical projects for reducing National Service, particularly when it would involve altering the whole principle of selection for National Service at a time when we know that these things lie in a hypothetical future. To do that would be profoundly unsettling to the National Service men and to Regular soldiers at present.
I suggest that we should do better to concentrate on a matter on which there is, I think, agreement all round—that whatever one's view may be of the future of National Service, it is important that we should not merely maintain but increase and stimulate the rate of Regular recruiting at present. We would all be better advised to concentrate attention on that matter than to canvass possibly highly controversial and varying solutions of a problem which in any case we cannot face at present because of the necessity of maintaining National Service.

Brigadier Head: I think the reason why I and other hon. Members suggested the sacrifice, either in terms of length of service or manpower, was that we felt, if we were going to stimulate Regular recruiting, it would cost so much that something must be given back to the Treasury in terms of manpower.

Mr. Stewart: That could not be a concurrent process. There would certainly be a period in which we should he bearing the two costs.
Regarding the question of increasing the rate of flow into the Regular content of the Army, great emphasis has been laid by hon. Members opposite on the question of pay. The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) made, if I may say so, a less moderate and constructive contribution than he has done to Debates on Army matters on other occasions. This criticism applies not only to his speech, but to the speeches of other hon. Members. The hon. Member's speech seemed to ignore the fact that we cannot make plans for pay, buildings and equipment for the Army without regard to the total economic state of the country. The hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) and Stockton-on-Tees brought out the fact that it is illusory to suggest that more should be spent on this and more should

be spent on that, without having regard to the enormous economic difficulties with which this country has been struggling in recent years.

Mr. Low: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret me. My remarks were made as a short reply to some made by his hon. Friends. The whole defence system has to be fitted into the economic situation of the country. The burden of my remarks was to point out that this business of building up the Regular Army had been left too late and consequently was going to be all the more expensive.

Mr. Stewart: I think that in saying that building up the Regular Army has been left too late, the hon. Member is falling into exactly the error which I pointed out. The immediate and pressing need, with the war over, was for this country to re-start its economy and regain its productive power; but it was not the case, as was suggested by, I think, the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that we are not attracting into the Army the right quality of officer entrant. I would like to tell right hon. and hon. Members that the experience we have had at the War Office conflicts with that view. We have no difficulty in maintaining a proper quality of officer, and that should be borne in mind when there is talk of "hopeless inadequacy" and "general dissatisfaction."
Among what are sometimes called the "middle piece" officers, the allowances are taxed, but it is, one should remember, among the incomes of these people that some of the changes in Income Tax have had the greatest benefit. When the income of a person is £1,200 a year, he pays £80 a year less than in 1946. That is a fact to be borne in mind and which is frequently ignored when this subject is raised. With regard to the pay of other ranks, a three-star private, as he was formerly called, who is now a five-star private, used to receive a basic 49 shillings a week; when one allows marriage allowance, home saving, and so on, he was comparable with a civilian earning 108s. 9d. As a result of the recent increases, he is comparable with a civilian earning 123 shillings a week. It cannot be said that we have failed to keep pace with the rate of civilian wages.


It is untrue, as the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) suggested, that the limitation on the increase of wages is something which has been swept aside. He will find that few wage earners will agree with him.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote. The point which I made was that the failure of wage freezing in industry has made the regular Army as a career, less attractive.

Mr. Stewart: It was stated that the arrangement had been torn up; that is fantastic, and the conflict, as I have said, has not occurred. But there is a difficulty about life in the Army for many people today. I am sorry about the private who was driving the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton and who was so depressed; I do not know whether he was depressed because he had, or had not, heard the lecture on planning which was being given. If it happens that any hon. Member on this side of the House were seen being driven about by a private soldier in a motorcar, it would be the subject of a Question, no doubt, by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), whose absence we all regret, but we are more generous on this side, and are happy to think that, if anyone is performing a public service, adequate facilities are made available to that person, be it in the form of a motorcar, or something else.

Earl Winterton: I do not know what is the hon. Gentleman's joke. Is he suggesting that when an hon. Member of this House goes to lecture on behalf of the War Office, or this House, he should not be driven from the station, or shown the ordinary courtesies? Is he suggesting that there is some connection with the Stanley case?

Mr. Stewart: I am not suggesting anything of the kind; I said that, had the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames known of it, he might have put down a Question on the point.

Mr. James Stuart: Nobody else suggested it.

Mr. Stewart: Hon. Members opposite attach more importance to it than I intended; I am merely pointing out the difference in the attitude of Members on

this side of the House to a matter of this kind and that of Members on the other side of the House. The serious point which I wished to make was that, apart from the question of pay, to which I think excessive importance has been attached on the other side of the House today, there are many economic and social difficulties facing people in all professions and classes in this country as a result of the war, and they bear particularly heavily on certain sections of Army officers. The shortage of housing, which affects many people in many ways, hits the Army officer hard because of the problem of moving, particularly if accommodation cannot be easily found. Therefore, we may look upon the question of married quarters as being, in my judgment, more important than pay. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham put it very fairly indeed when he said that this was a problem that had been faced and had been disregarded by many Governments.
Here is a point that will interest the hon. Member for North Blackpool, who, ever since I said at this Box last year that we hoped to build 600 quarters in this country, has at regular intervals asked for information about progress in order to see whether we would reach that figure. I am happy to assure him that if we fall a little short by the end of this month it will only be a trifle, and we may reasonably say that the figure has been achieved.

Mr. Low: The result of my Questions.

Mr. Stewart: I am happy to give such credit as is due to the hon. Member for that. If I were asked to quote a similar figure of what we might finish in this year, I would quote a figure of 1,000, and beyond that, in subsequent years, we hope to reach a figure of more than double the 1,000 and to raise the rate of building steadily. The House will appreciate that the further one looks into the future the harder it is to give a precise undertaking.
The measures we have in mind to deal with recruiting concern married quarters and the proper resettlement of men of the Regular Army in civilian life. As is well-known, my right hon. Friend is taking a particular interest in that problem, and was in close accord with the views expressed on this subject by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham. As it


becomes more possible for the Army to divest itself of certain abnormal tasks imposed by the war and to concentrate on what we may hope are the duties and position of a peace-time Army, then we shall deal with the question of movement of personnel, the greater possibility of officers and men getting to know one another, and the creation of a more stable and attractive life, which is perhaps the real attraction for men who desire to make the Army a career.
May I say a word about the Territorial Army? Hon. Members are aware of the progress that has been made in the provision of Territorial centres. I assure hon. Members that the phrase "Territorial centre" is not in such complete disuse as some of them suppose, even among those people throughout the country who for many years have been engaged in the Territorial movement and have been accustomed to that older term "drill hall." It is a genuine matter of difference of opinion as to which term one chooses to use. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, we have gone a long way in the provision of new Territorial centres. We have made improvements in the camp bounty, and—to reply to a question which I was asked by one hon. Member opposite—the provision of facilities for meals at Territorial centres where men come straight from work. In some cases, of course, there is a difference of opinion between the local food office and the Territorial centre as to whether the circumstances justify an application of that kind, but such applications have been granted in a number of circumstances, and I should always be pleased to look into any case brought to my notice and to take any action that may be helpful.
I must disagree with the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth. As he told us, he is not able to be here now, and I regret that, because I have to disagre with him very sharply on this point. I do not agree that those men who have, to their very great credit, built up the Territorial Army are in any way unwilling to welcome the National Service element. I agree that there is, and ought to be, something of the spirit of a club in the Territorial unit, but it ought not to be an exclusive club and we ought to recognise that it is not only a club but is part of National Defence.

I believe that among all ranks in the volunteer Territorial Army there will be a willingness to welcome in the National Service man, and not merely to treat him in the military sense but to set him an example, give him encouragement and make him feel he is among friends.
As to the recruiting campaign, it is true that we would like to have reached a higher figure, but the rate of recruiting has doubled since that campaign began. Nor will that process cease at the end of this month: it will continue steadily throughout this year. We notice, further, that the success varies a great deal from one part of the country to another. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will be pleased to know that his own county, for example, stands very high in the list.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What does the hon. Member mean by that? I represent South Ayrshire. Can he give me the figures for South Ayrshire, or the total figures?

Mr. Stewart: I am afraid I cannot do so off-hand. I merely remarked that, on the map I have been studying, in the progress of Territorial recruiting his county comes up very well.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The County of Ayrshire comprises a huge area and comprises a division represented by a hon. and gallant Member who is not to be confused with me at all. I do not represent the whole of Ayrshire.

Mr. Stewart: Anyhow, on our map the whole county is coloured red. I trust hon. Members will not draw me into quoting comparative figures for counties. I think the moral to be drawn is that, judging by the success that has attended the campaign in some districts, evidently there is not so much lacking in the general measures which the Government have taken. What may be wanted, I believe, is a more careful study of the method of approach in those districts where we have not been so successful.
Here I may not agree with some of the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir H. Watt) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) about the position of Territorial Associations in general. It is a very great question how far an instru-


ment forged to manage the Territorial Army in the past is really appropriate to the new conception of the duties of the Territorial Army at the present time. Frankly, I do not know, and I would not like to state off-hand, what is the right answer to the question. It is one of the things we shall hope to discover, though I ought not to leave that subject without, as a matter of duty, expressing appreciation of the great amount of voluntary work, and in some cases expenditure of private income by people not very well off, both for the Territorial Army and the Army Cadet Force. On the question of the Gurkha and Colonial Forces I may say that recruiting of Gurkhas is going very satisfactorily indeed.
I have spoken so far about what may be called the general shape of our Army and the elements which compose it. May I add a few words about the efficiency, spirit and morale of the force? The hon. Member for North Blackpool asked a number of questions about equipment. I think he was disregarding some specific information and assurances given in the speech of my right hon. Friend. On the particular point he raised about radio and radar equipment, I can give him the guarantee that there has been no change in the policy of equipping the Army with the latest equipment of that type. There are certain budgeting difficulties that produce a particular result on which he commented, but that does not indicate a change of policy.
On the general question of equipment, if we had seen fit to ignore the economic position of the country and the needs of the export drive, we might have been able to do much better immediately in providing the Army with vehicles and equipment and not have had to pursue the policy of "living on our fat," of the defects of which we are as much aware as the hon. Member for North Blackpool. But given the economic position and the needs of the export trade, unless that economic problem is solved all our defence preparations are nugatory. In those circumstances the policy of "living on our fat" is the right one to pursue. The matter is not merely one of patching up. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend, there is a programme for the rebuilding of vehicles. which is a much more drastic process than ordinary

overhaul and maintenance, and will yield good dividends.
As to the human factor in the Army, what about the morale and welfare of the men? We have been able, during the past year, to reduce the extent to which men were moved about and were unable to know from one month to the next who their comrades would be and in what place they would be serving. It will be reduced still further. The hon. and gallant Member of Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) asked what A.B.T.U.s were. They are the units to which men go when they first enter the Army, and they have the advantage that, instead of going to indiscriminate units not knowing what arm they are connected with, men know from the start that they belong to, say, the Royal Artillery or Infantry. At A.B.T.U.'s, men get not only basic training but selection is made for the particular types of work they will do within the arm or corps to which they belong. We have found that the creation of such units has materially aided the efficiency and allocation of men, and has raised the morale of men and their interest in their work.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood the question I asked. What I asked was whether A.B.T.U.'s were units of the active Army which were nothing more than schools of instruction for recruits.

Mr. Stewart: They are undoubtedly schools of instruction for recruits.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Are they not nominally units of the active Army?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but I do not follow what is at issue. The necessity for them is surely not in dispute.
Several questions were raised as to the use of the men's time, and it has been suggested that many of the duties could be done by civilian labour. Many of these duties could also be reduced by the introduction of labour-saving devices, and we believe enthusiastically in both these measures. But there is a little more in it than that. It is important that commanding officers and senior officers should recognise that the carrying through of an effective programme of military training is the first priority in running a unit, and that that is a thing by which the efficiency of a unit must be judged.
The unkind suggestion was made that there was a tendency to judge the efficiency of a unit by the condition of the men's boots because that was much easier than going into technicalities. I think that in a recent Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was a little harsh, but in an exaggerated form he put his finger on a fault that has existed in the past, a fault we are now trying to remedy. As time goes on, it will be found that the amount of time the ordinary soldier spends in doing the job for which he is in the Army will steadily increase. I must reject the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that all the men in the Army are simply wasting their time. I assure him that a member of the Women's Royal Army Corps is not entitled to have married quarters where she can bring all her family.
Thoughout the last 12 months the Army has been carrying out an extremely arduous job in fulfilling its commitments. Everyone has paid tribute to the way it has been carrying out its commitments in Malaya. But it has also been doing a fine job in areas which have not been quite so spectacular, areas where patience and devotion to duty have been called for. We have been able to take steps, within the economic powers of our country, to get the Army into proper shape, in providing better equipment and in providing a better life for those in the Army. If we weigh up what has been done, I think it will be agreed that it has been a creditable record.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what action back benchers can take who have sat throughout the Debate and wish to take part? In view of the fact that the Rule has been suspended, may I express the hope that the Closure Motion will not be accepted?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I propose to put the Question that I do leave the Chair, which is the usual practice. When I leave the Chair, it will be open for hon. Members to raise any point they wish on the Votes.

Question "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 550,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, "That Vote A be reduced by 100 men."
In rising to move this Amendment, I may mention that it is the formal and time-hallowed method of lodging an objection to the Estimates. The last time I heard it moved, it was moved from the Opposition benches by the present Prime Minister. I went into the Lobby in support of it; so did the Secretary of State for War; so did the Minister of Defence. I hope they will support it tonight. Here I must say that I am appalled by what is going on in the House. We are told that we are unable to stand on our own feet, and yet we are maintaining an Army out of all proportion to the economic conditions and situation of the country. At the General Election, foremost in all the campaigns that were made were peace and homes for the people. Homes are urgently required, but men are taken into the Forces regardless of the conditions of the people of the country. It was Goering who got a name for saying, "Guns before butter," but here today in this country it is guns and armies before homes, hospitals, and schools.
The most appalling thing is the unity that exists between the Tory benches and the Labour benches on these questions. To an old Socialist like myself, that is an absolutely appalling situation. I have sat here all day, and on other occasions, and I have got the feeling that I was listening to Tory Tories and Labour Tories. I challenge anyone to look over these Debates and show from the speeches made any political difference between those taking part. The other night the spokesman for the Opposition was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). He


is a Tory—an open, blatant, unashamed Tory. Never in his life has he deviated a hair's breadth from Tory interests, and yet he can say in the House:
If I may sum up: the line we take upon these benches is that we support wholeheartedly in its main essentials the foreign policy of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 578.]
Is it a Socialist foreign policy he is supporting? Of course, he says they must support the expenditure for the arms for maintaining that policy.
We are told there is a possibility, a danger, of immediate or near immediate war. From where? The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) cordially supported him—said that the enemy is the Soviet Union. The enemy of this country is not the Soviet Union. The Socialist Soviet Republic is not the enemy of this country or the people of this country. Every Member on this side of the Committee knows that American Tory militarists and British Tory militarists are the enemies of the Socialists of this country and the Socialists of the countries of Eastern Europe. Every hon. Member on this side of the Committee knows that. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton says that there is only one possible war—a war with the Soviet Union. There is already a war in Malaya, and, judging by the way things are going, it looks as if there may be another war in Transjordan.
From my political judgment—not from any inside information, but from what happened in the last war—I say that there is not a country in the world which has a greater need for and a greater desire for peace than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union will never under any circumstances participate in an aggressive war. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Finland?"] I dealt with Finland in this House at the time it happened. When there was a Fascist gang in Finland preparing a base for the Fascists of Europe, that was a situation that had to be dealt with. We had a similar situation when the Navy of this country went over and sank the Dutch Fleet without warning of any kind. There is no question of the Soviet Union participating in an aggressive war. Even John Foster Dulles,

who is not a friend but an enemy of the Soviet Union, has said that no responsible official in any country would dream of saying that the Soviet Union is contemplating an aggressive war.
In view of all this mendacious and lying propaganda which is going on, let me refer to other evidence. There have been trials in Hungary and Bulgaria, involving a cardinal, a prince and Free Church parsons. Read the correspondence between those people and Americans. Read the evidence. They wanted to get the old conditions back. They wanted the land back; they wanted their old standing back. They depended on war in order to get those old conditions back. Is that true or is it not? Who was to make the war? These people were not friends of the Soviet Union; they were enemies of the Soviet Union. There was not the slightest doubt in their minds that an aggressive war was being prepared, not by the Soviet Union, but by America and American satellites. Unfortunately, we happen to be one of the satellites. Those are the people who are preparing the aggressive war—the American imperialists, with their bases in every part of the world. What a pitiful situation for this country to be in under a Labour Government. What does the Leader of the Opposition say the Atlantic Pact is for? For peace? No, for changing the situation in Eastern Europe and getting his old pals back again. That is what he said at Brussels. Hon. Members can read it for themselves. Therefore, I say that there is no question of an aggressive war by the Soviet Union.
Let us consider one phase of this mendacious propaganda in relation to this Debate. I am sorry the noble Lord the Member for Horsham has gone away; many of us heard his impassioned peroration. Last year at the meeting of U.N.O. in Paris the Foreign Secretary declared with great emphasis: "In the democracies we publish full information about our Armed Forces"—do hon. Members remember that?—" but the Soviet Union keeps her armed forces secret." Was he telling the truth? What have we heard today? What was the impassioned conclusion of the right hon. Member for Horsham? no information; no knowledge of any of the forces we have. Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has said "No information." There is in the


House the amazing situation that nothing is known about the strength or character of the British forces, but everything is known about the forces of the Soviet Union—the number of divisions, the number of bombers, the number of submarines. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tell us what they have."] Hon. Members opposite have been telling us all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "You tell us."] I am not an authority. Why am I being asked?
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) gave the number of submarines the other night. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton has given the number of divisions they have. [Interruption.] I am not an expert. I am only drawing attention to the tricky, mendacious character of the propaganda that is being carried on in this country. The people are being led to believe that everything is open and known as far as Britain is concerned, that everything is hidden as far as Russia is concerned. There is not a word of truth in it. The Minister refuses to give any information about the make-up of the forces in Britain. So was the Foreign Secretary telling the truth?
We have Armed Forces here and in other countries. We have them in Malaya, protecting the tin and the rubber interests—not protecting the working class. The Secretary of State for War indignantly repudiated the suggestion that he was a conscientious objector in the 1914–18 War. It seems to me that was somewhat of a reflection on his comrades on the Front Bench who were conscientious objectors. There is one thing he cannot repudiate. This afternoon he referred to Malaya, and talked about murderers and the rest of it—people who fought against the Japanese, and since have been fighting for their independence, for the right to run their country in their own way. The right hon. Gentleman says they are murderers. In 1920 exactly the same language was being used by the Tories in this House, and by the Press of this country, about the Irish, about Michael Collins and De Valera. What were they? Murderers, gangsters, every foul name was used against them.
The Secretary of State for War was at that time in Glasgow, as I was. His sympathies and my sympathies, his moral support and my moral support,

were with the Irish in their fight for independence. I ask him whether that is right. In view of the fact that his sympathies, like those of the rest of us, were with the Irish when they were accused of being murderers and gangsters, how is it possible for him today to talk about the Malays? Of course he says "Chinese Communists"; he brings in racial prejudice to take away attention from the fight for independence. I ask any Labour man here, old and young, particularly those who were associated with Keir Hardie and Smillie, pioneers of the Labour movement—"Have the Malays the right to fight for their independence?"

Mr. John Paton: Is the hon. Member suggesting that it is the Malayan people who are attacking the British Forces in Malaya just now?

Mr. Gallacher: Yes.

Mr. Paton: The hon. Member is wrong.

Mr. Gallacher: I have already drawn attention to the fact that the Minister said that it is the Chinese Communists.

Mr. Paton: They are mostly Chinese.

Mr. Gallacher: In the East End of London Moseley said it was the Jewish Communists. Here, there, and everywhere it is the Jewish Communists. In Germany, with Hitler, it was the Jewish Communists. So, in Malaya, it is the Chinese Communists. It is all the same dirty game of introducing racialism to divert attention from the real question. We are told that Malaya is our possession, and therefore we have a right to be there; Indonesia is a possession of the Dutch and her soldiers are there; in French Indo-China the French have a right to have soldiers because it is their possession. And in Britain, America has soldiers. Why?

Mr. Piratin: Because it is her possession.

Mr. Gallacher: What are we reduced to but servility and the acceptance of foreign troops in this country? Where are we getting to? This once great, mighty country, is now humbled before the great god, Mammon.

Mr. Symonds: Is the hon. Member suggesting that there are no Russian troops outside Russia?

Mr. Gallacher: There are none outside, no Russian troops anywhere, except under conditions laid down by the Four Power Control. The Government Front Bench has been unable to submit any evidence of such a thing. I know how bad the situation has become, and how those who were my comrades in days gone by have new friends—the multimillionaires of America. Let me quote these words from "The Times" of 2nd March:—
Wisely, perhaps, the Prime Minister would add nothing yesterday to the tale of Mr. Mayhew's maladroit speech at Lake Success and its sequel. The consequences of those unguarded remarks, with the risk of reduction of American Aid to this country in 1949–50, are a salutary reminder that a country receiving gratuitous assistance has to be careful not only in what it does but in what it says.
When you are on the parish council you must be meek and humble. That is an impossible position for the people of this country. The people of this country, at the General Election, were aroused by a great spirit not only of enthusiasm but of desire and hope. When the results of the Election were declared, and a Labour Government was formed, they believed that we were going to advance along the road to Socialism, peace and prosperity. Never did they believe that we were going to advance to a combination with the Tories; nor did they ever dream for a moment that a Minister would get up and make a speech in this language: "I know the atom bomb was dropped by them, but I am speaking of general aircraft attack. In a future war, the Atlantic might become like the Mediterranean in the last war, with England taking the place of Malta." What a future! Think of it. Lunatics—that is what they are. Only a lunatic, completely divorced from the realities of contact with the people, could make a statement like that. Never would one get a working man, anywhere making a statement of that kind.
Do let us think about it. What does it mean? Malta, with its scattered population, and this country, with the greatest industrial population in the world, and yet it is to become as Malta; millions decimated and desolated—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who is going to make it so?"]—I am only talking of the conception in the mind of a lunatic. [Interruption.] What is the matter with hon. Members? Do they not realise that one

cannot understand how it is possible for any hon. Member on this side to talk the way they do about war? One would think that it was a game of cricket or football. After all the experiences of the First World War, and then the second, we should know that war again, if such a catastrophe came about, would mean practically the end of civilisation. I say it is complete madness to talk of it. From where is the danger to come?

Mr. Binns: From Moscow.

Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton) rose—

Mr. Gallacher: No, I cannot give way. It is claptrap from alleged Socialists. Let them read the literature on which the Socialist movement was built; let them talk with the pioneers who laid the foundations of the movement. They will find it was made clear all the time that modern war was the outcome of capitalist greed for profit; and there were never such great capitalists in the history of the world as the American capitalists.

Mr. Blackburn: I am sure the hon. Member will give way now. Will he say whether it is fact, or not, that, according to Marxian theories, war is inevitable so long as there are States in the world which are not Communist?

Mr. Gallacher: There were never any Marxian writings which suggested anything of that character.

Mr. Blackburn: Then the hon. Member ought to read it up again.

Mr. Gallacher: No, that is all wrong. Marx said that a stage was reached in capitalism where the fight for markets becomes so keen that one capitalist State has to fight another to get the monopoly of the markets. Capitalists are responsible for war; look at the history books. It takes the form of competition—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): A lengthy lecture about the principles of Socialism or Communism is really irrelevant to the Vote on the numbers in the Army.

Mr. Gallacher: I hope you will excuse me, Mr. Bowles, but hon. Members wanted to know where the aggression was coming from. [Laughter.] The


attempt of hon. Members to snigger indicates the fact that some Members at any rate are smitten by their conscience. No one who calls himself a Socialist and who has a real belief in the principles of Socialism can support what is going on between the Labour Front Bench and the Tory Front Bench. No one with those beliefs can support the proposition that the miners, the railwaymen, the engineers and the transport workers should be lined up with the big multimillionaires of America to fight the workers of Eastern Europe.

Mr. Binns: We shall see what the railwaymen say tonight.

Mr. Gallacher: Never mind about that. I am dealing with those in this House who claim to be leaders of the working class movement, and who have a responsibility towards the working classes. It is shameful that the workers of this country should be lined up with Forrestal, Truman, Vandenberg and the great group of American monopolists are prepared not only to exploit the people of America but the people of Europe and, indeed, of the world. The C.I.O. leaders—

The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with this Vote either.

Mr. Gallacher: I am going to finish. It is a shameful thing that men who claim to be Socialists and followers of Keir Hardie and other pioneers—

Mr. Symonds: And of freedom.

Mr. Gallacher: That is the slogan of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Member should not pinch it from him. It is about all he has. Leave it to him.

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be very much better if hon. Gentlemen did not interrupt this speech because then it might come to an end a little bit earlier.

Mr. Gallacher: It is a shame that those who claim to be followers of the pioneers of the Socialist movement, who claim to be Socialists, whose job is to fight and get rid of the capitalist class and to bring in a Socialist state in this country should be associated with the Tories of this country and of America. Because of that my colleague and I decided to put down this Amendment, which we hope will be supported by some other hon. Members.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The proceedings in Committee have been enlivened by a characteristically vituperative speech by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who, in accordance with the practice of his lords and masters, has tried to drive a wedge between his own Front Bench and its supporters. The hon. Member for West Fife has told us from what he calls his political judgment that the Soviet Union will never participate in an aggressive war. One is bound to comment upon that, Mr. Bowles, that one cannot place much faith in that hon. Member's political judgment, which so often in the past has been found at fault. We cannot but recognise that ever since the end of the war in Europe, Russia has deliberately minimised the help which this country and which the United States of America gave to the magnificent victories of her land forces; that ever since the end of the war in Europe she has at conference after conference frustrated every attempt at international agreement; that she has consistently rejected an agreed policy towards Germany, and that she has been engaged during the last four years in building up behind the iron curtain an exclusively Soviet zone.
And if that were not evidence enough of her intentions, we have to regard the fact that ever since last July she has been blockading Berlin, which is not only a crime against humanity, but is an attempt, if ever there was an attempt, to overthrow everything for which we in Britain and in the United States of America and in the other free countries stand for and in which we believe. I think we do right in these circumstances to support the Secretary of State for War in claiming that we should vote him this sum without deduction for the building up of the Armed Forces of the Crown.
I think many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must have been very much struck by the speech which was made earlier this evening by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), speaking from the Government benches, who gave as his view and as the view of members of what he called the Services Committee on the Government side that the immediate task of the British Army was to build up as quickly


as possible a highly mobile and efficient striking force, well-equipped, and ready to take its part, and it would have to be, he said, a generous part, in the action which would need to be taken by the Western Union States to keep Russia, in the event of an outbreak of war, from spreading westwards across the whole of Europe, and that the task of that Western European force, formed largely, one gathered, of a mobile striking force of British arms, would be to keep the Russian forces as far East as possible, to give the French time to mobilise behind the Rhine—the Belgians, the Dutch and so on—and the great American people time to mobilise their resources and throw those forces into the weight of the land battle. Perhaps I would not go as far as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, but I would say that I agree that we must as quickly as possible build up a mobile striking force.
I gave an undertaking in the earlier Debate, when we were sitting as the House and not as a Committee, to devote myself to one subject and one subject only, and I do not propose at this late hour to depart from this undertaking. I hope that what I am now going to say will be entirely helpful and constructive, and not in any sense critical. I do not expect a reply from the Minister, but I hope that he will give me a favourable reply by taking action at some future date.
I want to suggest one course of action which I think will be helpful to the objects which we all have in view. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should build up as quickly as possible what I would call—for want of a better name—a Territorial Staff Corps. I remember only too well how in the early days of the war we were deplorably deficient in trained staff officers. I believe that shortage was also experienced in the early days of the war of 1914–18. With mobilisation, the embodiment of the Territorial Army and the expansion of the Regular Army, a great many static formations had to be brought into being quickly, and expanded. Headquarters of Home Commands were divided into areas, as they were called, and sub-divided into sub-areas, with garrisons and so on—each with large staffs and all badly in need of trained staff officers.
Before the war there had been at least one correspondence course for Territorial Army officers, and as soon as war began students who had passed in the course—a comparatively short one—were pulled away from their units and given third or second grade staff appointments. As soon as war began—in fact, a day or two before it began—the first war course was started at the Staff College. From that moment onward the Staff College was working as hard as it could with a junior and intermediate wing at Camberley and, later, a senior wing at Minley Manor, turning out staff officers at the highest possible rate.
Do not let me be understood to suggest that staffs, particularly those of static formations at home were not too large. At the time when the war began in earnest I was serving on the staff of the headquarters of one of our Home Commands. Just before the evacuation from Dunkirk, the Army commander decided to hold daily conferences. I remember the first of these very well. It was held on the morning of Intercession Sunday, which I believe was on 26th May, 1940, just before our troops were brought away from Dunkirk.
At that first conference there were only 12 present, and yet on 1st July, five or six weeks later, there was a perfectly enormous army of officers, including naval and air liaison officers, the military liaison officer with the regional commissioner, and a whole host of others. The nominal roll of officers at Command headquarters had to be seen to be believed—a tremendous and growing list. We were completely immobile—in one unit at any rate—and so large did we become that we had to divide up, with a so-called battle headquarters going, like one of the regions of the Coal Board, into a very lovely country house to hide itself away, and a second and later a third echelon, with people like G. (Pubs.), G. (Camouflage), the Education and Catering Corps, and psychiatrists and agriculture and welfare officers galore. I do not say that to detract from the fact that everyone knew there was a great and increasing demand for trained staff officers in the early stages of the war, and that the proportion of unsuitable officers on the staff was much higher than should have been the case.
The Secretary of State, in one of the lyrical and more fanciful passages of his


speech, said that in the event of need there would be a sufficient stream of reserves pouring into the moulds which were already available. I do not believe that is true as regards the staff. My object in taking part in the Debate is to express the strong hope that someone at the War Office is looking ahead now and planning for a supply of trained staff officers in the event of emergency. I notice that a correspondence course is to be started for Territorial Army officers. I saw an announcement in the Press a little before Christmas. I inquired about it and was informed that the scheme was in the planning stage.
The scheme contemplates a correspondence course, combined with a short central course at the Staff College. We arc told that vacancies are bound to be strictly limited, but Commands have been notified of the number to be allocated to them respectively and are to submit names of suitable candidates when the scheme comes into operation. It seems to me that that does not go nearly far enough. There is already an inadequate number of Territorial Army officers. I know perfectly well that commanding officers do not allow their best officers to go on a course of this kind. I do not blame them, because they know that should war break out the officer will be whisked out of the unit and put in a chair in an office, and that he will not be able to fight. It is all wrong that a Territorial Army officer should be taken out of his unit at the present time, when officers are so badly needed, to be trained for the staff. I do not think it goes nearly far enough, because it denies an opportunity of drawing from a much wider and more fruitful field.
I want to explain quite briefly what I mean by that. There are at the present time a great many non-Regular officers who served with distinction on the staff during the recent war and who qualified at the Staff College. These, in many cases for various and for the most part perfectly valid or at least perfectly understandable reasons, are unable to take their part in the combatant ranks of the Territorial Army. Some of them may have been first grade staff officers, and have been so long away from regimental duty that they feel conscientiously that they could not pull their weight as regimental commanders, or even as battery

or company commanders in a Territorial unit. Others feel themselves to be too old to start on a comparatively low rung of the ladder, while others have achieved and are working in important posts in trade, commerce and in the professions, and are unable to attend regularly at Territorial drills.
I am not concerned to justify or to defend that attitude, but I do state it as a fact which I know to be true from my own observation. It seems to me that if only we could get these trained staff officers who served in the recent war and passed the Staff College, and utilise their services in a Territorial Staff Corps, we would, in the first place, release Territorial officers to do their own job without having to be called away to a correspondence course on staff duties. Secondly, it would provide a valuable nucleus of experienced staff-officers ready to step forward in the case of an emergency.
I envisage this Territorial Staff Corps as consisting initially of trained staff officers who, as I have said, either served in the last war as such or passed the Staff College, or both, who would undertake at least a three years' engagement, with a correspondence course and an annual refresher course at the Staff College or elsewhere for a period of 10 days or a fortnight in every year. I think that course might well be supplemented by a recommended course of reading so that who ever was in charge of this scheme would send round a list of recommended articles in the "Army Quarterly," the Journal of the R.U.S.I., articles such as the two which appeared recently in the "National Review" by General Lyne, the late Director of Military Training at the War Office on "The Army We Require," which it would be useful and helpful for these prospective staff officers to read over so that they might be kept up to date with the latest trends and ideas.
There is another point. A unified command makes unification of staff duties essential. The Secretary of State told us this afternoon that we have provided already for Western Union some of our best and highly trained staffs. We should make provision for recruiting and training liaison officers, particularly those who are skilled in languages and who would be ready to work with other Western Union


countries, and we should earmark the most promising officers for exchange visits. Later selected parties might be flown to possible sources of operations. That sort of thing would have been invaluable if we had done it before the war. It would have been invaluable if we had done it in the case of Norway before the war. It can be done now. While it would doubtless be possible to train some general staff officers in a corps such as that, I believe that the most promising field would be in the field of administration.
I remember being told at the Staff College that the three requirements of an administrative staff officer were intelligent anticipation and timely preparation, a thorough knowledge of the organisation, functions and capacity of the administrative services, and a tidy mind, accuracy in detail and the ability to work hard. It seems to me that that is exactly the kind of qualification which is expected in a competent business man.
The morning milk, the daily newspaper, the 'bus or the train to the office, clothing, feeding, amusements—all these are examples of administration in a highly developed form. Yet these are not mysteries to a competent director of a large concern. They are his daily experience—just as dealing with men is the everyday task of a director of personnel of a large concern, as it is the daily concern of a high grade "A" staff officer. It is, in the main, among the business men of this type that we should expect to find our higher grade administrative staff officers. We ought to be earmarking them now. I believe that recruitment to the staff corps could be by individual invitation. We should certainly handpick some of the ex-Indian Civil Servants for a task like that. I believe that there we have some magnificent material. I am saying this in all seriousness. It is a suggestion which ought to be followed up.
I apologise for keeping the Committee so long, but I should like briefly to recapitulate, and to say that I hope the Secretary of State will think again about this Territorial Army correspondence staff course. By selective recruitment initially from ex-officers who filled staff appointments during the war or who passed through the Staff College, let us build up a corps of staff officers against an emergency. Let the Military Secretary's

Department keep a tab on all of them so that they may be graded according to whether they are suitable for work with mobile or static headquarters, whether they are suitable for "G," "A," or "Q" work or for liaison duties. Let this be done with imagination, and let it be done at once.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Bowles, just after the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). I am perfectly certain that I can use his speech as a model and that I shall not be out of Order if I follow in his footsteps. I am sorry that I have not got sufficient notes to enable me to speak for so long; I shall not be able to give any personal reminiscences, but apart from that, I shall do my best to make a useful contribution to this Debate.
During the speech of the leader of the Communist Party there seemed to be considerable doubt about who was to blame for the position we find ourselves in, in common with other countries. As I see it, it largely depends on what part of the world one is living in, and what view one takes; but in this country, and as far as our responsibilities in this Committee are concerned, the fact is that we are in great danger—and this four years after the end of the Second World War. If any testimony as to that danger is needed, these Army Estimates give it.
Many hon. Members on this side, during this and other Service Debates, have been in the habit of taunting hon. Gentlemen opposite with not being prepared so well for a previous war. I dare say there is a certain amount of justification for that point of view. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not hesitate to agree. But I would remind the Committee that the position in 1949 is not the same as it was four years after the end of the First World War. The responsibility of this Government, in relation to their point of view in these matters, is vastly different from that of any previous Government. Four years after the First World War, this country was controlled by hon. Members who now sit in Opposition. Quite naturally, as a matter of tradition, custom, family ties, and all the rest of it, they


would never dream of not continuing to maintain the Armed Forces. It was a matter of form, part of the tradition of this country.
But today it is very different. We have a Government in power representing a party which has never held these traditions. Right through the propaganda that led up to the obtaining of power, the party on this side refuted and repudiated these traditions. It is only because—and this is where we are different from four years after 1914–18—we have got today a clearly sighted enemy facing the people of this country that this Government is being forced to take these steps with regard to the Armed Forces. I would also say this. If we had got a clearly defined enemy in the U.S.S.R., it would be impossible for this Government, or this party, to defend these Army Estimates, the amount of money being spent, or the number of men being drawn into the Forces. It is a fortuitous circumstance for those people who believe in war and in armies, and in army contracts, that this enemy has come along.
I beg hon. Members to study carefully the propaganda that is going on, attempting to strengthen the idea that we in this country and in Europe have to face the possibility of another world war. It may be that the traditional interests of the armament producers, people who believe in armies and in commanding men, that these forces and influences have something to do with this continual preaching of the possibility of war and the need of preparing for war.
There is another thing which has struck me as very curious during this Debate, and my attention was again drawn to it in the reply of the Under-Secretary. Hon. Members opposite have drawn attention during this and similar Debates to the lack of information. They have suggested that there is secrecy. The Under-Secretary admitted that that was the case, but to placate hon. Members opposite he pointed out that the Prime Minister had undertaken publicly, in letters published in the newspapers last weekend, to inform the Leader of the Opposition about these matters of which we in this Committee have no knowledge.
I draw attention to one sentence in the letter of the Leader of the Opposition in which he stated that on receiving this information he would pass it on and con-

sult with his colleagues. This means that the present position is that the Government are giving to the Leader of the Opposition certain information which the Leader of the Opposition is going to give to his colleagues but which ordinary Members of the House of Commons will not have. I object on that point alone. I am elected as a Member of the House of Commons, and I am as much entitled to all the information which is available as is the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues.
There is a second point in this matter. Most hon. Members who support this armaments programme do so because they say that only by the flourishing of armaments can we hope to obtain peace. That is the argument—that we can keep the peace by being efficiently and heavily armed and so making it clear to possible enemies that it would be an unfortunate thing for them if they started a war. If that is the point of view, we ought surely to publish every possible advantage which we have and make clear to the world what our real strength is. It seems to me that the Government, in confining its confidence to the Leader of the Opposition and certain of his colleagues, is doing a disservice to the world, if there is any validity in the argument that one can frighten a potential enemy.
I suggest that our experience shows us that there is no validity in that argument. It has never succeeded. It would be all right if only one side were doing that sort of thing; but the people in the U.S.S.R. are taking exactly the same viewpoint. They are arming and they are attempting to intimidate us. It was obvious in the Debate on the Navy Estimates the other night that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) had been intimidated, because he was telling the people of this country how many submarines the U.S.S.R. had built, and that it was absolutely hopeless for us to attempt to stand against her. In fact, the Civil Lord went so far as to accuse him of being—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I ask whether we can continue the Debate on the Navy Estimates?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is in Order in referring to the Debate of two days ago. I think the Debate has been very wide.

Earl Winterton: In that case it is open to us to discuss the whole question of defence, naval, air and everything else.

The Deputy-Chairman: I remember that hon. Members on that side of the Committee have discussed the question of lifting troops, the training of Territorials, and so on. The hon. Member is in Order.

Mr. Braddock: I am only using this incident as an illustration. The thing went so far as to cause the Civil Lord to accuse the right hon. Member for Bournemouth of having visited Russia, and with being a "fellow-traveller," or a "crypto" or something of that sort. That is the position we are being drawn into as a result of this armaments race. That is what we are indulging in at present. I say that this method of preventing war has never succeeded in the past and, for obvious reasons, is not likely to succeed on this occasion. In almost every country the pace with regard to rearmament is getting hotter and hotter; great sums of money are being spent, and more and more men are being trained and drawn in, and gradually the economy of most countries is becoming a war-time economy.
There is secret consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and that, to my mind, proves that we are preparing the way for a coalition which is to be part and parcel of the arms race which has already started. We are very close to, if we have not already arrived at, a coalition of this Government and the Opposition so far as foreign policy and defence are concerned, and in a modern State, once one gets that amount of control and interest involved, it will not be very long before the influences of that coalition are felt with regard to home affairs. We shall see all sort of questions which we thought were in the domestic field being drawn into this great task of preparing for war.
If this type of development goes on, as it is going on in every country of the world, the time will come, as it came in Nazi Germany, when it will be impossible to draw back. That was a country which attempted to prevent war by preparing for war; ultimately it was driven into war, and ultimately it was defeated. That is the way development is taking place at present.
It seems that we are on a sort of rake's progress. We go over this subject every year; we have Debates on Foreign Affairs. They are very short Debates, and very little is said. We "knock off" at ten o'clock, presumably to please the Lord President of the Council, who likes what he terms a nice, tidy Debate. But we have certain commitments—and we have every justification for the next step. The Minister of Defence has a Debate on Defence; that is sheer bluff, and we do not give anything away. We know perfectly well, the Minister of Defence, the Secretary of State for War and all the rest know, that in modern war defence is impossible. Their real object is to prepare the attack, but they placate people and let those people who believe that war is an iniquity think that we are only defending ourselves. These solemn Debates and these White Papers simply hide the work which is going on.
Then there is the third stage. We have had that tonight. We are voting the men and the money. Goodness knows what we are getting for it all. They have too many men on their hands at present, and do not know what to do with them. They are not calling up all they can. The Minister told us, in a previous speech, of the discoveries he made when he arrived at the War Office as Secretary of State for War. I am not a bit surprised at those discoveries. He went to the War Office with a great record as Minister of Fuel and Power. He did a magnificent job in that office, and the Government made a very wise appointment in sending him to the War Office, because they knew that that place wanted cleaning up. My right hon. Friend very soon put his finger on the fault. He told us in that previous Debate that the time of the men in the Army was wasted, that the married quarters were of poor quality, and that the relations between officers and men were bad.
Considerable dissatisfaction about re, cruiting has been expressed in this House. Is it to be expected that an Army with that record and those conditions would attract men? Obviously not. Men are reasonable and well educated. They returned a Labour Government in 1945, and tonight they have done something else. They have returned another Labour Member of Parliament. Men are


not going to be led away by bad conditions. I do not think we ought to be surprised that men are not coming into the sort of Army we have at the present time. Suggestions have been made about giving them higher pay. We have tried to get them in under conscription, and although we have got them, we know that it is perfectly useless. It is now suggested that we should bribe them by offering them jobs in the barracks at the end of 21 years in the Army. It is believed that that will entice them to come in. I do not believe a word of it, because it will not work.
One of the reasons why we have a Labour Government at the present time was because of the time at which the Election took place. It was in 1945 immediately after the Second World War was over. A great many people at that time said to themselves, "The Labour people are putting themselves forward. We do not know a lot about them, but we will give them a trial. One thing will not happen with a Labour Government and that is a third world war." In many of the constituencies it was the votes which came from the boys overseas and the recommendations which they made to their parents at home that led to this great Labour majority. In 1945 the people of this country had had enough of war. They have had enough of it today. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) ought not to be surprised that the fighting capacity is not all that he would like it to be.
We have arrived at the third stage. We are voting the money. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeen went into the details, I propose to go into details of one section mentioned in this Vote, the Royal Army Medical Corps. That corps is getting a grant of nearly £9½ million. Part of its duties are mentioned on page 12 of the Estimates—the medical care of the sick. Many of us thought that when a Ministry of Defence was set up steps would be taken by those people who believe in the existence of the Armed Forces to co-ordinate certain of the Services. Matters connected with the care of the sick in the Forces provide a fitting opportunity for co-ordination. It would, at any rate, give the Government an opportunity of getting the whole thing reorganised.
Matters to which my constituents have drawn my attention show me that there is a good deal needed in the Royal Army Medical Corps. I will give one example. We are forcing young men into the Army. Many of them, however, go quite willingly with an intention to do their job, and I have had my attention drawn to a case of a boy whose parents are in my constituency, a boy 18 years of age, 6 ft. 2 ins, in height, 13 stone in weight—a magnificent example of young manhood, never having had a day's illness since ordinary childhood ailments. He entered the British Army, and within four weeks he was in a T.B. ward in a hospital as a result of chronic neglect on the part of the Army authorities. He reported on a Saturday and he was said to have bronchitis. He was given light duty and medicine by a doctor, although there is some doubt as to whether he actually saw a doctor. He was given light duty, and medicine three times a day by an orderly. As far as I can discover, the doctor made no arrangements to see him again. In 14 days' time, that boy reported again with pneumonia and some other complication, and a shadow on his lung, and was hurried off, as I say, to hospital.
I say that if the Army can take no better care of the young men who are obliged to go into it, than that, this Royal Army Medical Corps should be immediately looked into and reorganised. There have been other cases of a similar character, and from what I hear from my constituents there is general dis-satisfaction on the part of parents at the way their young men are looked after when they get in the Army. If the Government really want full-time soldiers, I suggest that if they got down to practical matters of that sort and made the Army fit to take young men into, they might get some better result.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was speaking, an hon. Member opposite rather jeered at him and said that had it not been for the existence of Armed Forces in this country, it would not have been possible for my hon. Friend to have made the speech he did. I am getting on in years and I have had some little experience of wars. I will admit that I have a very great admiration for soldiers, sailors and airmen. I got that


early in life by reading a certain book by John Ruskin, who made the comparison between the grocer and the soldier. He pointed out that a grocer was not expected, and did not expect, to die in order to keep the population fed, but that, on the contrary, the soldier was ready always to make the great sacrifice and to die in order to carry out his job. I have never forgotten those words, and for that reason I have always had, both as the result of an acquaintanceship and knowledge, a very high regard for the soldier.
But a new aspect is coming over the position. We are all getting involved in that particular matter with regard to war. During the Boer war, which I can remember, I felt perfectly safe in this country, but in 1914 to 1918 things were vastly different, and in the last war every man, woman and child, civilian or soldier, was just as much in the front line as a young soldier. That is what is happening in the world today. We are organising, building up armaments and arms, but in the final result the people whom all this is to defend are in greater danger than they have ever been before. We ought to realise that the proposals which we are making and advocating are, in the final analysis, not going to defend the people of this or any other country from the result of a war which will be even more terrible—and there is no denial of this in any section of the community.
I suggest that, whatever the wickednesses of Russia may be—and for all I know they may be many—and whatever the sins of the United States of America—and they may have none—we know that the methods being pursued by this country and by those countries to defend the helpless are bound to fail. For that reason we should treat this matter far more seriously than we have done today, or than we generally do in this country, and should reconsider the whole question facing us with a view to starting again on entirely different lines. It is certain that the lines on which we are working at present are bound to lead to death and destruction.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that it has been worth while prolonging this Debate if only to hear the speech of the hon. Member for

Mitcham (Mr. Braddock). It is the sort of speech which would have been delivered from both benches if a Conservative Government had been in power. It has been said that the Lord President of the Council will be dissatisfied because this has not turned out to be a nice, tidy debate. Nothing would please me better than if it were continued until it merged into the Debate on the Air Estimates.
The thing I want to know is where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is. We are passing Votes amounting to £304,700,000, and further Supplementary Estimates. At one time a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned rather than agree to extravagant Estimates of the Army. He was Lord Randolph Churchill, the father of the present Leader of the Opposition, and when the Army was spending a fraction of what it is today he thought that it was asking too much. In his letter of resignation he said:
If the foreign policy of this country is conducted with skill and judgment, our present huge and increasing armaments are quite unnecessary and the taxation which they involve perfectly unjustifiable.
Rather than agree with what he considered to be swollen estimates, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer threw up his job and gave up his political career. I should like to know where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is when this money is going to be thrown about and when we have actually been told by the Father of the House that he does not know what the money is for, and that there is some great secrecy which cannot be revealed even to the right hon. Gentleman who has been the longest term of years in this House. As a member for a Scottish constituency, I object to giving blank cheques to anyone. I object to over £300 million being given to the Secretary of State for War when the case which he has put does not justify giving him threepence.
The Secretary of State has told us that he does not know anything about military strategy. Then what is he doing in the job? Surely, if we are going to entrust 500,000 men in his hands, that is a terrible confession to make and we should not be called upon to give this ignoramus £300 million of our money? The hon. Member for Mitcham has raised a very important constitutional point, a point


which I tried to raise myself at Question Time today, and that was what sort of information is to be conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister has said it has been the practice to convey information of a secret nature to the Leader of the Opposition, but it does not follow that it should be continued by the Socialist Government. If the Government object so much to the iron curtain, why should they draw an iron curtain round Downing Street?
At Election time Members of the Government denounce the Leader of the Opposition and say that he is a political danger. They say that they do not want him back and do not want his policy or his party; but then the Leader of the Opposition goes around to the backdoor of Downing Street and is given information which is denied even to the veteran Member of the House. I have the greatest sympathy for the brigadiers. They are also among the ignoramuses. I have listened to four brigadiers in this Debate confessing their ignorance, which is an indictment in effect of the Government's policy. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) made an excellent case against conscription, but he was not so good when he got on to economics. His military strategy was perfect.
When the Leader of the Opposition gets all the secrets from the Prime Minister, is he going to take the four brigadiers into his confidence? If the brigadiers are to have the information, surely Members of the Labour Party should have the information; otherwise how are they going to defend the Government against the charges of extravagance which will be made. "Will you come into my parlour?" said the fly to the spider. Once the spider gets into 10, Downing Street, it is goodbye to the fly. In due course we shall have a heated controversy between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. How will the Secretary of State for War, who presumably will be kept in the back kitchen at Downing Street, the four brigadiers and those of us who are completely outside the secret circle, be able to make up our minds whether the £300 million is being wisely spent? I do not know. I thought the Foreign Secretary would have condescended to put in an appearance, because I think it is unfortunate that the Minister of Defence and

the Secretary of State for War have been left behind—two not very impressive boys on the burning deck—while the rest take up an aloof position.
We old soldiers do not get an opportunity of discussing these Estimates more than once a year, and so I want to pursue some questions. We have been told that the campaign in Malaya is costing a great deal in men and money. I have a statement made by the Governor of Malaya in which he says that the campaign is now costing £220,500 a week. How long is it going on? No one dares say that the condition of Malaya is getting better. The fact is that it is getting steadily worse, and with this mounting campaign of men and money, if it is getting worse, where is the manpower needed in Malaya, in the Territorials, on the Western Front, and on the economic front as well to come from? We cannot conduct these highly elaborate organised activities on the manpower at our disposal at the present time, and that is the headache of the Cabinet.
I want to turn to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton, when he argued, quite rightly, that if we are to have soldiers and officers we have to give them decent accommodation. I have been pleading for the privates of industry for a good many months in the House, and I interrupted the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask him where he was going to get the building labour to build the houses when the men were being conscripted by the Secretary of State for War. They cannot be doing military exercises and they cannot be building houses at the same time.
I believe, from my experience in Scotland, that we have not got the labour force for building the houses with the people available now, and if we take them away from building the houses needed for the civilian population, we are going to get strong opposition to the Government's policy. I know the apprentices are not called up, but I tried to get an assurance from the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Labour that no other building workers are to be called up in Scotland in the present year. They both refused. They know they are going to call up workers from the industry which has not the labour force it requires. How are we going


to build the barracks and quarters with the men in the Army and no labour and materials?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman should pursue that problem. I want to know when these brigadiers are going to forget Sandhurst and learn something from the London School of Economics, because we cannot possibly have an enormous economic machine going, trying to recover our export trade to build up our economic status in the world, and at the same time have these millions of men in the Army.

Brigadier Head: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech he would recognise that the whole point was how to succeed in stimulating military recruitment so as to give something back to the economic manpower by gearing down on the terms of service of the National Service men.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: But how long is this process of stimulating and gearing down, to last? Another brigadier, who is not here now, made a very able speech in which he talked about the recruiting campaign. We have had a lot of talk about the recruiting campaign in this Debate, and the absent brigadier—the deserter—argued that if the Leader of the Opposition had been the first in the series of speakers in this campaign, the campaign would have been a magnificent success. He cannot get votes, but apparently he is going to get recruits. I have tried to ascertain from the reticent Minister of Defence exactly how many recruits have been obtained as a result of this massed oratorical attack on the British public. There has been an increase of, I believe, 500,000 in the Secret Service. The Secret Service cannot find out how many recruits enlisted as a result of the combined oratory of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the Opposition and future oratorical efforts—

Mr. Blackburn: Before that statement is quoted on the Moscow radio, would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain that he was referring to £500,000 and not 500,000 people?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Certainly. I thought military gentlemen knew what I was talking about. As for the number

of people involved, that is another thing hidden by the iron curtain. There is no justification for this Committee assuming that the people want us to go ahead with the recruiting campaign, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the country is practising an effective sit-down strike so far as the campaign is concerned. The absent brigadier called the recruiting campaign a flop, and said it was impossible to resurrect a flop. Perhaps he would be interested in the finance involved in this flop. I put a Question to the Minister of Defence recently, and I asked him the cost of the recruiting campaign in 1948. I will say this for the Minister of Defence. He very courteously put some mathematician on the job, and at last I have had a reply.
These are figures which I think the Committee should know. I am giving to the brigadiers information which they do not seem to have. In 1948 expenditure on recruiting publicity for the Regular and Women's Forces was about £325,000. That is a lot of money. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) called attention to the Press officers. I am sure he would be interested in the expenditure on this recruiting campaign. The total number of recruits on Regular and short-service commissions or engagements in the year was 88,500, and the cost per recruit, therefore, works out at a little under £3 15s. Recruiting publicity in 1948 for the Auxiliary Forces, by which I mean the R.N.V.R., the T.A., A.T.S., Royal Auxiliaries, and so on, amounted to £210,000. During the year 46,500 recruits were obtained, and the cost works out at about £4 10s. a head. These figures show that there has been enormous expenditure, with the minimum result.
I challenged the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) about the recruiting campaign in Scotland. There was a recruiting exhibition in Glasgow and in that populous industrial area from 20th to 28th February. According to the figures I am given by the Minister of Defence the cost was about £2,100; 131,000 people attended; and 146 recruits were obtained —from the whole of the city of Glasgow and that populous industrial area. There were some cadets found, too. It works out at about £14. I asked about Winchester. There they had Lord Portal, an exhibition of some kind, and a vote


of thanks moved by the Labour Member from the constituency. The total expenditure was £30, and the number of recruits was nil.
I understand the Secretary of State for War has been very energetic in this recruiting campaign. How has he done? He went to Aberystwyth. He reviewed the troops. The students took great interest in this review. I have here a Welsh paper which shows the slogans the students brought with them to assist the Minister for War. Hon. and gallant Members who have been at Sandhurst will remember General Carnot. One of the slogans was "Join Carnot's Army," but in anticipation of legislation, I suppose, they did it in the simplified spelling—"Join Fred Karno's Army." The Minister made an impassioned oration. There was one slogan, "Have a go at Joe." I understand from local information that the number of recruits was two A.T.S. girls. It was not the oratorical powers of the Secretary of State for War—it was his sex appeal.
I suggest that the greatest liability of the recruiting campaign is the Secretary of State for War. He got two A.T.S. girls, and innumerable raspberries. We do not pay anyone £5,000 a year for going round the country collecting raspberries. But that appears to be the present function of the Secretary of State for War. The Prime Minister would be doing a national service if he placed the Secretary of State for War in a position where he could use his energies and abilities and industry, as he did when he was Minister of Fuel and Power, in some other sphere of activity, and so end what can only be a ludicrous continuation of these ridiculous recruiting campaigns. I do not wish to pursue the point any further. I think it was in reply to an interruption that the right hon. Gentleman explained his military activities in World War 1. He stayed where he was. He was organising the Seamen's Union in Glasgow, and preferred to do that rather than join up at that time. I do not blame him, because I think he was doing useful work. I do not know exactly where he was, but I do know where he was not—he was not in the Army. Naturally, the first question which is asked if one takes part in a recruiting campaign is "What did you do in that particular war?"

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand, Mr. Bowles, that you will permit me to reply to this?

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want the Secretary of State for War to reply fully and explain in detail, if he wants to, why he was not in the Army. I am sure the House will be interested to learn. I argue seriously that the present Secretary of State for War is a hopeless misfit—that he has absolutely no idea of the anti-Army feeling he is creating throughout the country. There was a written question yesterday about the Huddersfield Trade Council. It appears that the Huddersfield Trades Council had unanimously declined to have anything to do with the recruiting campaign. The Secretary of State for War said that this had been a statement made by the vice-president, but that a circular was being issued saying that the T.U.C. was in favour of the recruiting campaign. So, apparently, the T.U.C. is being brought in to coerce the trade councils. I know what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if, when he was president of the Glasgow Trades Council, the T.U.C. had been brought in to use its influence to get him to take part in a recruiting campaign at that time.
A large number of trade councils throughout the country have refused to have anything to do with the recruiting campaign. They say that the recruiting campaign is regarded by some speakers as anti-Communist and anti-Socialist, and even anti-Secretary of State for War propaganda. That was the case at Perth. The trades council there objected to a speech made by a general and because a lady known as the "Red Duchess" had come along and delivered what was considered to be an anti-working class speech. In Edinburgh the same thing took place. I understand that a large proportion of the trades councils throughout the country, the people in close touch with the Labour rank and file, are antipathetic and hostile to the campaign because they want to know why they are to be called upon to enlist in a war against Communism.
The Foreign Secretary is to speak on the wireless. I saw in Monday's newspaper a very interesting thing by Harry Pollitt, the Leader of the Communist


Party. I have nothing to do ideologically with the Communist Party, but I find that Harry Pollitt was asked by someone what his attitude was likely to be if there was war with Russia. He replied, "I would do exactly as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did when he tried to stop war with Russia in 1920." There is no doubt that at that time the Foreign Secretary was one of the leading members of the T.U.C., and he took a very active part in stopping war with Russia. I suggest now that this feeling among thousands of working class people in this country that they would not go into a war with Russia, which is reflected in the attitude of the trade councils, is a result of the activities carried on by the Secretary of State for War and other members of the Government Front Bench for generations.
The "Star" had a leading article recently—on 17th February—on this recruiting campaign, and stated that letters to the "Star" continued to come in, all telling the same tale of boredom, idleness, and a desire to get out of uniform for good. I suggest that that is the plain truth, and we can organise recruiting campaigns for all we are worth, but we will not get the working people enthusiastic about a war with Soviet Russia because they realise what such a war would mean. I have said I do not agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I entirely disagree with the idea that Russia is entirely blameless. The Russian Government must share the responsibility of all Governments; but if we conscript people in this country, we cannot logically object to people being conscripted in Moscow or anywhere else.
Let us get this Russian argument in some kind of proper perspective. I have a statement here by a marshal of the Soviet Union—Marshal Govorov—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the name?] Hon. Members may laugh at the Soviet marshals and their names today, but a few years ago they were very glad to pay respectful tributes to them; and if that was so a few years ago, we should listen to their arguments today. Here is what Marshal Govorov says of the Soviet Army: "The armed forces of the Soviet Union stand on guard for peace and unity." Why Russia keeps a strong

army, navy, and air force is explained with just the same arguments as those used in this country. When I was in Moscow, I went round a military museum, and the officer conducting me took great pride in the House of the Red Army; he showed me guns and military material captured from the White generals. He showed me pictures, hanging on the wall, and—

The Chairman (Major Milner): Order, I really do not think that the hon. Member's remarks are at all in Order or relevant in this Debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am coming to a conclusion very shortly. What I am trying to say is that the same arguments that have been used about having to have preparedness for war if one is to have peace have been duplicated, almost word for word, in other countries. They are used by Marshal Govorov. If the rulers of the States of this world pursue this in diplomacy, with the cold war developing into the hot war, we are going to reach the final catastrophe.
We should consider this very carefully. We have not an army efficient for war; all the efforts to persuade the people of this country to organise into a gigantic military machine will fail. We have to look beyond the possibility of war, and the man who has shown the way is not Marshal Stalin, or the Leader of the Opposition, but a man who was prepared to give his life for his ideals, just as the soldier is prepared to give his—and that man was Gandhi. Do not let the Socialists think, now that they have power, that they should adopt military ideals. Do not let them accept the leadership of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Do not let our spiritual leader be the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford. Before hon. Members go into the Lobby to give a blank cheque to build up a huge military machine, they should think twice about where they are leading the people of this country.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I may be permitted to bring this Debate back to its original purpose, which was to consider primarily the provision of finance for men and material for the Army. Although the hon. Member for South


Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has enjoyed himself hugely, in my opinion he has indulged in more irrelevancies than I have heard in any single Debate in my experience in this House over a period of years. Major Milner, your predecessor permitted a general Debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of Order. I understood that your predecessor, Major Milner, allowed me to make my remarks, which were relevant to the Debate, and I feel that the remark of my right hon. Friend was a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not making any reflection on the Chair, but I was merely pointing out that your predecessor, Major Milner, declared we could' have a Debate on this Amendment on general defence matters. If that is so, hon. Members, including myself, are entitled to roam all over the place. I should not have supposed that at this time that was desirable, but obviously if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire is permitted to take a certain course of action I judge that I shall not be precluded from doing the same myself.

The Chairman: I must reserve for the Chair full right to determine what is in Order and what is not, but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to reply to any personal animadversions upon himself.

Mr. Shinwell: I am in some difficulty about this matter, and it ought to be cleared up. [Interruption.] Do I understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite are impatient? They listened with great delight and exultation to what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire said.

Mr. J. Stuart: And we want to hear the answer.

Mr. Shinwell: Hon. Members will hear the answer in due course. I want to elucidate the point you have made, Major Milner. If in the opinion of the Chair we can have a general defence Debate on this Amendment, clearly we are entitled to discuss the general question of defence. I merely put that—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect any general Ruling on the matter. I shall listen to what is being said, and if it goes beyond the purpose

of the Debate then, of course, I shall call the right hon. Gentleman to Order.

Mr. Shinwell: Let us see precisely where we are. There is an Amendment before the Committee which asks that we should agree to the reduction of the Army by 100 men. I must resist that Amendment, and ask hon. Members on this side of the Committee to support me in the Lobby if necessary, because the British Army cannot afford the loss of 100 men. What I want to know is—and this applies not only to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) but to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), who spoke in the same vein—if in their opinion it is undesirable to have included in the Army figures the 100 men to whom they refer, then I should have thought that they would propose to abolish the British Army altogether. That would be logical. That I could understand, but that is not their position at all. I am not prepared to propose that we should make no financial provision at all for the Army. What does it matter, then, from that point of view if the Army is reduced by 100 men?
As regards the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I am in the utmost difficulty in trying to understand why he is worrying about our inability to obtain recruits. I understood that was the concern of the hon. Member. He wants to know why we cannot get recruits after this expenditure of money, why, in spite of the oratory at Aberystwyth and elsewhere, we are unable to get the recruits. But the hon. Member does not want recruits for the Army. He is against the Army—and why should he concern himself in this matter at all? That is the position as far as he is concerned. He is either for the Army or against it. Apparently he is against it. Then why worry about recruits? He can leave the matter to us.
I propose to address my remarks to the hon. Member for West Fife rather than to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.

Hon. Members: He has gone.

Mr. Piratin: Only for a moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Never mind whether he has gone or not. I think there ought to be a reply to the hon. Member for West Fife and I am going to make a reply.

Mr. Piratin: I shall answer if necessary.

Mr. Shinwell: As far as the Member for South Ayrshire is concerned, however, I am bound to say I heard this sort of speech before over and over again, and in my judgment it is not worth replying to, except on the personal issue; and I want to say this about the personal issue. It is not the first time the hon. Member has indulged in attacks. Not long ago he made a declaration on the radio in which I was accused of having, at one time, inspired murder and treason, a statement he had to withdraw and a statement for which he had to apologise. In these circumstances, I am not disposed to bandy words with an hon. Member who is guilty of accusations of that kind.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: This is an irrelevant matter but it is a personal one. As I said on the radio—and I did not apologise on the radio—I quoted a statement that the Minister of War had been tried at Edinburgh for murder and high treason. These words occurred somewhere in that indictment; the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), showed me the indictment. But he cannot deny he was in Edinburgh in gaol for five months for incitement to riot or something like that.

Mr. Shinwell: It is obvious the hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. To come along with a statement of this kind after having agreed he made a mistake on the radio only indicates that the hon. Member is in a most unbalanced state of mind and therefore I am prepared to leave it.
When it comes to a question of military record, I confess quite frankly I did not serve in the Army. But I reject the suggestion quite definitely that at any time I was a conscientious objector—and that was the accusation made against me by the hon. Member. Indeed, accusations have been made against other hon. Members on this bench in the same way, but contrary to the general impression, and if it is a matter of interest to the Committee—and apparently it is because the hon. Member was listened to with great attention—in the First World War I was associated with a seamen's movement, and in being associated with that movement I was actually engaged in carrying out work on behalf of the Gov-

ernment, and was excluded from military activity because of that work I had undertaken.
Although subsequently I had to come before the tribunal in connection with my exemption because I was making certain political speeches, it was the Government of the day, inspired by George M. Barnes, who was a member of the Coalition Government, who himself arranged through the Government for my continued exemption. I resent this suggestion that at that time I was a conscientious objector. I want to make this quite clear. Those who have conscientious scruples against war are quite entitled to their opinions, and I have no complaint on that score. I hope we shall hear no more of this matter in future.
Now I want to go into the allegations of the hon. Member for West Fife. I want to say this definitely and categorically: No one in the Labour Party or on these benches wants war with Russia. We have no aggressive designs and, so far as I know, no member of His Majesty's Government has made any declaration which indicates that we desire to engage in hostilities against Soviet Russia. On the contrary, we want peace with Soviet Russia and with every other nation in the United Nations organisation. The hon. Member for West Fife accused the Labour Government of associating not only with Tories on the opposite bench but of association with American imperialists and multi-millionaires, as he described them. The hon. Member for West Fife must be careful because Soviet Russia is still a member of the United Nations organisation, and in that organisation are capitalist and so-called imperialistic nations. I think we ought to have his explanation of why Soviet Russia continues to be associated with those "imperialistic" nations in the United Nations organisation.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman has said that no member of His Majesty's Government desires war with Russia. His Majesty's Government have close associations with the Tories. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that none of the Tory leaders or none of the Tories desires war with Russia?

Mr. Shinwell: If it comes to associations with certain sinister elements, sometimes I wonder—I say this with the utmost goodwill and with no hostile feel-


ings against Soviet Russia or anyone connected with her—who are the associates of Soviet Russia. After all, we must not forget that in the early days of the late war there were influences in Russia not very far removed from Fascist elements. I dislike reviving these historical episodes, but if we are accused and provoked then I am afraid that we shall have to say rather more than we desire. We want peace with Russia, and do not want to exacerbate feelings. It is hon. Members like the hon. Member for West Fife and those associated with him who are much more likely to provoke hostile relations between this country and Soviet Russia than members of the Labour Party. Now I will deal with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.

Mr. Piratin: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me—

Mr. Shinwell: No. I shall deal first with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, because he had a lot to say. There is something I want to ask him which is, after all, the crux of the whole matter; in my judgment the rest is irrelevant. Are we being asked to abandon our defences? That is the question which I want him to answer. Does the hon. Member for South Ayrshire ask the Labour Party to brine, about a complete abandonment of our national defences?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe in and am always appealing for non-violence and non-aggression. I stand by that.

Mr. Shinwell: Then the hon. Member wants us to abandon our defences—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force and, presumably, the Civil Defence—even in an emergency. What does that involve? It involves in the event of hostilities against this country leaving the civilian population—men, women and children, including those in the hon. Member's constituency—unprotected and without any safeguards at all. I want to say quite frankly that we of the Labour Party are more concerned about protecting the men, women and children of South Ayrshire than the hon. Member.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Nonsense.

Mr. Shinwell: I am quite satisfied that if the hon. Member wants us to abandon our defences while we refuse to abandon our defences, they are more likely to look to us for protection than to the hon.

Member. I want to know whether that Is also the position with the hon. Member for West Fife. Why should we abandon our defences, leaving ourselves unprotected and without any safeguards, while Russia continues to retain her defences in a most adequate fashion?

Mr. Gallacher: There is a very simple explanation for that. If the Minister cares to look at the map, he will see that America has offensive bases in every part of the world, completely surrounding the Soviet Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] No, there is no aggression of any kind directed against this country.

Mr. Shinwell: I leave myself in the hands of the Committee. The plain question has been put to the hon. Member, and, incidentally, in putting that question I was also putting it to the Communist Party in this country.

Mr. Piratin: The Minister puts the question: do we favour abandoning our defences? The answer is "No." But that answer equally includes this, that our defences are neither in Greece nor Malaya, but in Britain.

Mr. Shinwell: Apparently there are divisions in the Communist Party. Probably that is the reason why their candidate has lost his deposit in St. Pancras today. Let me take up the answer given by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). He says: "No, the Communist Party do not want the British Government to abandon the defences of this country," but we are to abandon our defences in Malaya, in Greece and elsewhere. Are we to understand that we are to withdraw our forces from Germany and that simultaneously the Soviet authorities will withdraw their forces from Eastern Germany, at the same time withdrawing her influence from the satellite countries?

Mr. Piratin: Does the Minister claim that we are defending Britain in Greece? Does the Labour Party claim that? As regards the withdrawal of forces, the Soviet Government have withdrawn all their forces from Northern Korea while the American forces are still there with our consent. The Soviet Government have offered to organise a peace treaty with Germany and to withdraw all forces within a year. The Minister can accept that if he wants.

Mr. Shinwell: I might properly ask the hon. Member whether the Soviet Government will withdraw their influence in the satellite countries. I imagine that the answer to that question would be "No." Let me be positive in this declaration. Whatever Members may think, and whatever the Communist Party in this or any other country may think, so long as there are British interests to be protected in any part of the world where our interests lie we are going to protect them.

Mr. Gallacher: That is the old Tory argument.

Mr. Shinwell: There is nothing Tory about it. We believe in the efficacy and value of the United Kingdom and what is called the British Commonwealth of Nations, if I may be permitted to use the term British—and I see nothing wrong about it. There is great value and great virtue in the British Commonwealth of Nations.
1.15 a.m.
In my judgment it has made already and will continue to make a great contribution to democracy, freedom and civilisation. That is a Labour principle and I was not aware that the pioneers of the Labour movement in the old days, Keir Hardie, even Hyndman, or even members of the Democratic Socialist Federation to which the hon. Member for West Fife at one time belonged, were opposed to the British Commonwealth, although they undoubtedly, as we do now, violently objected to the exploitation of native peoples.

Mr. Gallacher: As in Malaya.

Mr. Shinwell: The British Government are not exploiting the native people of Malaya.

Mr. Piratin: Of course they are.

Mr. Shinwell: That brings me to the accusation made by the hon. Member for West Fife about the statement made by myself early on in the Debate that there was a policy indulged in by the Chinese in Malaya of systematic murder, and he denied that murder was taking place.

The Chairman: I think I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman considerable latitude. The real position is that matters must be related to the Army Estimates.

Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, that is precisely what I thought at the time. I thought it was quite irrelevant and had nothing to do with the Debate, but the accusation was made, and my simple reply is that undoubtedly there has been murder by Chinese against planters, civilians and others in Malaya.

Mr. Gallacher: Why Chinese?

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps some Malays have been guilty of murder and sabotage, but there have been murder and sabotage. If it is in Malaya, the United Kingdom, or Russia, it is murder all the same, and we have sent some of the Army out to Malaya —

Mr. Piratin: To burn down villages.

Mr. Shinwell: —to assist the civilian authorities to put down sabotage and murder. We shall continue to do so. I was also told that away back, many years ago, I sympathised with the Irish when certain Irish rebels were committing murder.

Mr. Gallacher: I did not.

Mr. Shinwell: I never sympathised with Irishmen committing murder. At one time, like members of the Labour Party, I may have been a friend of Ireland, but I never condoned murder, either by Irishmen or anyone else. I resent those suggestions.

Mr. Piratin: It is a lie.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must withdraw.

Mr. Piratin: I withdraw immediately, and I want to explain what I said. I did not mean what the right hon. Gentleman was talking about was a lie, but that he was deliberately misquoting the hon. Member for West Fife. Therein was the lie. I withdraw.

Mr. Shinwell: If I have misunderstood the hon. Member for West Fife, and I have known him for over 40 years, it is the first time. The speech delivered by him is a tribute, and a remarkable one, to our democratic institutions. It is one of the few assemblies in the world where such a speech could be made. I regret to be at loggerheads with the hon. Member. I have known him for over 40 years, and I know he is capable of indulging in a great deal of humbug, but nevertheless one does expect him to dis-


play common sense and intelligence on occasions of this sort. I am deeply disturbed to find that he was unable to do so in the course of his speech.
Now I come to my final point. We have had a most interesting Debate. I am bound to say in my defence that I did not seek to provoke any hon. Member in my opening speech. I set forth the position of the Army as I see it. Something has been said about my ignorance of military strategy.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman himself said it.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, I said it. It would have been very absurd indeed, and almost ludicrous, if I had pretended to have a knowledge of military strategy. Hon. Members opposite may display their great knowledge of military strategy; I have no pretensions in that connection. In matters of military strategy, I am quite prepared to leave myself in the hands of military advisers with the necessary qualifications. I agree that there must always be ministerial responsibility. That is the reply to the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) who complained that we were trying to dissociate ourselves from responsibility. We accept our responsibility. We cannot put our military advisers in the dock. We have to come before Parliament and we are answerable to the country for matters of this sort. We do not pretend to have a knowledge of matters in which we have not been fully trained, and for very good reasons, but as for the strategy associated with Western Union, and, indeed, the general military strategy of the country, we take the advice tendered to us, or we use our own judgment when the advice is given to us, and we accept responsibility for what occurs

Mr. Low: Ministerial responsibility?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, ministerial responsibility. The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know we cannot dissociate ourselves from responsibility in matters of this sort. Nevertheless, we have had an interesting Debate and we have brought out certain facts in relation to the Army which I thought the Committee ought to know.
May I summarise in a few final words the position as I see it? There is much still to be done in order to put the Army

on a sound footing, as regards men, materials, accommodation and conditions. I accept that, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will agree wholeheartedly that that is so. The same might be said of the other Defence Services. Over the past year we have effected substantial improvements in formations, training, general organisation, the provision of equipment, the maintenance of equipment including vehicles of various types, and in particular as regards accommodation and general conditions in the Service. I make that claim. But, as I say, much remains to be done, and we shall continue to do all we can in order to improve the conditions of the Service.
This is my final word to the Committee. We are not entitled to spend money unless we can prove that we are spending it wisely and efficiently. I accept that at once. Of course, in a transitional stage there is bound to be some expenditure which, while it can be accounted for, may not be disbursed in the proper fashion. That cannot be helped in a transitional period. Nevertheless, we claim that generally speaking, the expenditure in the Army is being used to great advantage and we hope that in future it can be used to even greater advantage.
We do not want war with anybody. We want to be at peace, but we must protect ourselves should an emergency arise. That is the policy of the Labour Party—the declared policy of the Labour Party at annual conferences, subscribed to by the majority of trade unionists, by Labour supporters in the country, and, I am glad to say, by a vast army of millions of electors up and down the country. It is the policy subscribed to by His Majesty's Government, and it is the policy which I ask the Committee to accept.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I only wish to detain the Committee a few moments. I have been here in the Committee a very long time and I think the Secretary of State knew I wanted to get up. I do not complain that he got up before I did. Nevertheless, I have no intention of foregoing my right as a Private Member, particularly on my thirty-fourth birthday. I am very glad that we have seen the


spectacle of the Secretary of State for War attacking the Communists. I have wanted to see that for a long time, and it is a very good birthday present to me. I entirely support what he has said, but I want him to go a great deal further. It is about time there was a sense of indignation in this country. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) made a speech with which I had great sympathy, because he stuck to a point of view which many hon. Members had some time ago. I would point out to him, however, that in relation to the victory which he proclaimed, not only did the Labour Party win by 5,000 votes—

The Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed on these lines. He must apply himself to the matter before the Committee. He has not said one word about the Army Estimates. The question before the Committee is not the result of any election.

Mr. Blackburn: I was trying to point out that the Communist Party have moved an Amendment which raises the same point of view as was expressed in the by-election in which it lost its deposit and received only 800 votes. It was a perfectly relevant point to the matter under discussion. I was trying to say that it is time we had a sense of indignation about these matters.
About two months ago we had a British battalion in Salonika, the 1st Lincs. Within 1,000 yards of them 40 people in the American farm school were taken away by night, and many of them had their throats cut. I am not becoming any more friendly to hon. Members in this House or the Press of this country than I have been in the past, but I think they ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves because they lack the indignation they used to have. On this Amendment, whether the number of British troops should he reduced or not, we ought to say that wherever British troops are in the world they must be in a position to maintain the dignity and traditions of our country. It is a monstrous thing to reflect on the fact that within 1,000 yards of British troops—

The Chairman: It does not seem to me that that matter has any direct relation to this Vote. The hon. Member must address himself to the Vote.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not wish to enter into any kind of dispute, but I do want to point out to you, Sir, that the widest possible Ruling had been given tonight that all subjects of defence were in Order.

The Chairman: That may be, but at the moment I am the judge, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks, unless he relates them more directly to the matter before the Committee, are relevant.

Mr. Blackburn: I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, but I must point out that it is in entire conflict with the Ruling of your predecessor. I wish to turn to the subject I really intended to discuss, courts martial. I want to say to the Minister of Defence that I think the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) might now go into permanent retirement. Here we have a Committee, the Lewis Committee, of which I was an insignificant member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] —which sat for something like 18 months on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I think, for a period of four hours on each occasion. At the end of that period the committee produced a report which related to the Army and the Air Force. After that report had been produced, the Minister for Defence came to this House and said he could not implement the report until a similar report in relation to the Navy had been obtained.
I do not want to embark upon a subject which was debated the other night. But I want to ask this question because it is a matter for administrative action in the meantime. The report dealt with a subject called the unanimity rule. Under this rule, it is possible for a member of His Majesty's Forces who is court martialled to be convicted by three votes against two. If the person concerned were a civilian, he could only be convicted by a jury of 12, who would have to agree. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head.

Mr. M. Stewart: I think my hon. Friend has forgotten the existence of Scotland.

Mr. Blackburn: I admit that there are different rules for Scotland, but so far as England is concerned, none of us, no ordinary person, can be convicted of a serious crime unless 12 people, collected more or less at random, who are the jury, return a verdict of guilty.


But today, a person who is court martialled can be convicted by three votes against two. That is to say, two people out of five people forming the court can consider him to be innocent, yet he can be convicted. On one or two occasions during the war I served on courts martial, and I discovered afterwards—I admit that one should not have done so, but one does—that men had been convicted by three votes against two.
Will the Secretary of State at any rate see by administrative action, as I think he can, that from now onwards no one in His Majesty's Forces is convicted by a court martial unless the whole of the court agrees that the person concerned is guilty. That is a perfectly fair proposition to put forward. It is merely asking that, as people are being conscripted in peace time, the Secretary of State for War will see that there shall be no conviction of a person for a crime unless every member of the court concerned with the case is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. I ask that seriously, even at this late hour. After all, once the time has passed midnight there is little reason, from the point of view of many hon. Members on this side of the Chamber, why time should worry us so much. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
Whatever the time may be, I do think we are entitled to an answer to this question. It seems to me that I have every right in this House, and speaking from the Labour benches, to advocate at any time of the night or morning the cause of people who might hereafter be found guilty despite the fact that two people out of five forming a court consider they are innocent. That seems to me to be a perfectly proper point of

view for one to put forward from the Labour benches at any time of the day or night. I hope the Secretary of State for War will indicate that he is prepared, by administrative action, to take the necessary steps to put that into effect.

My last remark is on another subject. So far as conscription is concerned, I am, perhaps, in a different position from any other hon. Member who has spoken today. I voted for the Government when the original proposal of 18 months was put forward; I voted for the 12 months' period, and I voted for the extended period. I have voted consistently with the Government because I thought it was within the competence of the Government to know what the period ought to be. But now I think that the extra six months does not give any period for overseas service, and the period should be reduced.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss that; it would require legislation.

Mr. Blackburn: May I finish upon this statement?—[Interruption.]—I will finish, not because of but in spite of jeers of hon. Members behind me; I feel that the whole policy of conscription ought now to be reconsidered in the light of remarks made both on this, and on other occasions, and I hope that the Minister of Defence will realise that the case he originally put forward is no longer valid; and by an amendment to it, he will be able to give a great deal of comfort to many people.

Question put, "That a number not exceeding 549,900 all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 65.

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[1.38 a.m.


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Pritt, D.N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Gallacher and Mr.Piratin.



NOES



Adams, Richard (Balham)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Low, A. R W.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mellor, Sir J


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Grimston, R. V
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Head, Brig A. H
Nichol, Mrs. M. E (Bradford, N.)


Blackburn, A. R
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Boardman, H.
Hogg, Hon. Q
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman. P.
Peart, Thomas F


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Popplewell, E.


Collins, V. J
Keenan, W
Price, M. Philips


Conant, Maj R J. E.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N W.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shawcross, C. N (Wrdnes)


Diamond, J.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E




Simmons. C J
Symonds, A. L.
Whiteley, Rt Hon W


Skeffington, A. M.
Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)
Wigg, George


Smith, S H. (Hull, S.W)
Thomas, D E (Aberdare)
Wilkins, W. A


Snow, J. W
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Woods, G. S


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Thomas. J P L (Hereford)



Stuart, Rt. Hon J (Moray)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Studholme, H G
Wallace, G D (Chislehurst)
Mr. Pearson and Mr Bowden.


Swingler, S
Wheatley, Colonel M. J (Dorset, E,)



Question put, and agreed to.

VOTE 1. PAY, &C., OF THE ARMY

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £94,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &amp;c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."—(Mr. Shinwell.)

Mr. Low: I want to ask a very short question. Vote 1 includes provision for short service engagements. We are told in the Estimates this scheme is now terminating. This is the first time we have been told that. It is a very important announcement. It affects a number of Regular and non-National Service men in the Army about which we are particularly interested. I would just like a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary as to whether this is so or whether it is a mistake.

Mr. Stewart: No. It is not a mistake. The scheme was not intended to be a permanent measure. I think the hon. Member is right when he says that publicity has not been given to it before, but there is no error in the matter. The thing is as described in the Estimates.

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £12,460,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 45,000, all ranks, for the Royal Army Reserve and 6,000, all ranks, for the Supplementary Reserve), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 150,000, all ranks) and Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950.

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £23,600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950.

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £15,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the

expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1948–49

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £55,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

Schedule.





Sums not exceeding





Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.


£
£


1.
Pay, &amp; of the of the Army

12,939,000
1,567,000


3.
War Office

190,000
—


4.
Civilians

1,644,000
766,000


5.
Movements

1,350,000
700,000


6.Supplies, &amp;c.

3,950,000
1,840,000


7.
Stores
Cr.
19,500,000
18,500,000


8.
Works, Buildings and Lands
Cr.
Cr. 6,277,000
900,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services

59,933,000
377,000


10.
Non - effective Services

771,000
—



Total, Army (Supplementary) 1948–49£

55,000,000
24,650,000

Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.

CONTROL OF LABOUR REGULATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

1.48 a.m.

Sir John Mellor: I wish to raise certain questions with regard to the Government control of labour. Last Tuesday I asked the Minister of Labour to identify the Orders which remain in force which had been made under Regulations 58A and 58AA and he gave an answer which was a very full answer. It


took up a whole page of HANSARD and appeared in cols. 969 and 970 on Tuesday, 8th March. There were altogether 27 orders made under these two regulations; 27 orders now in force. But analysed, these 27 included 14 orders fully in operation, three orders partly in operation and the remaining 10 were described as not being operated. I want to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary why these 10 orders are retained in force if they are not now operative.
Are they being kept, perhaps, for the next war? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in particular why it is necessary to retain in force the Evacuated Persons Registration Order of 1940. Again, why should there remain in force 13 pages of the Essential Work (Building and Civil Engineering) Order of 1942? Is it kept in force merely because at some time it might be found handy by the Minister? Surely the Minister of Labour ought to revoke orders no longer in operation, revise the remainder of that series, and consolidate the set into one convenient order?
The orders described in the answer as being fully in operation are found, if examined, not really to be so because in many cases they are never enforced. I would take for example Article 4 of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order of 1940. This Order, which is designed to prohibit lock-outs and strikes, is being consistently flouted. I think myself that it is a bad order; it is wrong in time of peace that the Government should interfere in strikes or lock-outs. But if the Government are going to maintain that order alive, then they should enforce it. If they are not prepared to enforce it, they should revoke it, because to maintain such an order nominally in force, but not enforced, is to bring that law into contempt. There have been innumerable strikes which have been direct infringements of that order, but no action has been taken by the Minister of Labour. Contrast the inaction of the Minister in such cases with his treatment of individuals. If a coalminer tries to leave the coal industry he is directed back and if he does not obey that direction he is punished. The same with agricultural workers.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a case which occurred at

Nottingham—a somewhat exceptional case in which the Eagle Star Insurance Company were prosecuted for giving temporary employment to a typist without the permission of the Ministry of Labour. They employed that typist while the Ministry was still trying to find her work, and continued to employ her for some time. In fact, they are still employing her. During this period the Ministry sent her to no fewer than five prospective employers, none of whom found her suitable. Having failed to find her employment, the Ministry prosecuted the Eagle Star Insurance Company for infringement of the order. The company were prosecuted and convicted but the typist, nevertheless, was allowed to remain in their employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): What is the hon. Gentleman complaining about? Does he think that we should have punished the typist as well.

Sir J. Mellor: I was merely pointing out the futility of this procedure when the Minister was not prepared to exercise his powers of direction to enforce his will. The whole thing is ridiculous. The Ministry of Labour cannot find this typist a job after trying time after time. and then object to the Eagle Star Insurance Company employing her.
There is a sequel to this, or a matter perhaps in some way related to it, about which I wish to ask a few questions. There was another prosecution last Friday in Nottingham. Two officials of the Ministry of Labour were convicted of accepting bribes and were each sentenced to nine months imprisonment. I understand that one of these officials was the official who laid the information against the Eagle Star Insurance Company. I want to ask at what level the decision was taken in the Ministry with regard to the prosecution of the Eagle Star Insurance Company. During the case against these officials, it was apparent from the statement by the counsel for one of them—the one who, as I understand it, laid the information against the Eagle Star Insurance Company—that it was within his competence to determine whether or not a prosecution should take place under the Control of Engagement


Order. This is what his counsel, Mr. A. M. Lyons, K.C., said:
Rice, before any question of gifts arose. decided there would be no prosecution.
That was according to the "Nottingham Herald" of 5th March. Therefore, the case for this man assumed that he had power to determine whether a prosecution should take place, and it was alleged that he decided not to prosecute before he received any money. I ask therefore in the case of the Eagle Star Insurance Company, against which this man laid the information, was the decision to prosecute taken by Rice, or was it taken at some higher level? If it was by Rice. it was most improper for the decision whether or not to prosecute to be left in such hands. The Draft Declaration on Human Rights, in Article 24, contains the statement:
Everyone has a right to free choice of employment.
I want to add to that another interesting quotation which appears in the report of the International Labour Conference dealing with the employment service organisation. There the representative of the United Kingdom, Miss Mary Smieton, the committee's reporter, said as follows:
The employment service is a voluntary service and depends therefore for its effectiveness on its own efficiency on the one hand. and the use that is made by employers and workers on the other.
If those are the principles to which the Government are committed in the international field why is it we cannot have any freedom of employment at home? Why is it they will not practice in the United Kingdom what they preach at San Francisco.
I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to amplify the answer given to me by the Minister of Labour on 20th January. I asked him if he was
aware that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers said on 22nd December that the National Coal Board had agreed to a closed shop, and, in the circumstances, will he give an assurance that in no case will any labour controls be used in such a way as to require a mineworker to join a union against his wishes.
The Minister who made no denial of the facts, simply replied:
The only thing I can say is that it is not the Government's intention to do anything that will break down agreements entered into

between employers and workers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1949; Vol. 460, col. 335.]
I think we should have some fuller statement from the Minister. If there is any possibility of a closed shop being applied to the mining industry it is entirely wrong to maintain any control which will force men to remain in that industry. At the present moment the right hon. Gentleman wants to obtain many more recruits for that industry. He would find it much easier if he lifted the control so that men would know, if they should want to go out, that it would be quite easy for them to do so.
I read in the Civil Appropriation Account that the Ministry of Labour have established a thing called the National Institute of House Workers Limited which is supposed to train people for domestic service. The cost according to the Comptroller and Auditor-General's statement to train one individual for a period of six months is no less than £160. I want to ask why the Ministry think it worth while to spend so much money training people for domestic service when by means of the Control of Engagement Order they prevent other people coming into it. Surely they should make up their minds what they want.
I think all these controls of labour are most unfortunate because they are tending to freeze people in their jobs. Many people are unwilling to leave their jobs because they can only go to other jobs through the Ministry. They do not know where they will then get to. At the present time unemployment is increasing. There is more than appears in the figures given by the Ministry. There is a great deal of short time. I should like perhaps in conclusion to congratulate the Ministry of Labour upon one thing. They have succeeded in producing another million workers in the course of the last week just like rabbits out of a hat.

2.5 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has raised a matter which he has raised on many previous occasions in one form or another. He has put the same question, and no matter how many answers we give him


he always puts the same questions if the answers have nothing to do with his way of thinking. I think his recapitulation of the orders that were in existence was slightly wrong. Perhaps I might put them into the proper context. There arc seven effective orders plus Article 5 of the Essential Works Order. Those are the powers remaining with the Ministry; the orders which are effective. Then there are nine other orders which are ineffective. Those are the orders about which he complains, apparently.
Let me meet his first point with regard to those orders which have now ceased to have effect. Within a short period of time we shall be taking the necessary action to revoke those orders which have fallen into disuse, and we shall consider consolidating the remaining powers, in one order or perhaps in two, so that the House will understand exactly what we are using and for what purpose. The hon. Baronet complains about the effect of these orders. It will be of interest to him to know that since October, 1947, to the end of December, 1948, under the orders about which he complains, only 29 directions were issued in this country. With regard to the orders that were previously on the Statute Book—that is the ring fence around mining and agriculture—in the same period from October, 1947, to December, 1948, 374 directions were issued to men who were in the mining industry compelling them to remain in that industry, and 132 directions were issued to men in agriculture keeping them in agriculture.
The hon. Baronet apparently complains about that. He takes the view that our economy can go "bust" that we can have the maximum freedom in this country and be dependant upon other countries for the means to maintain our standard of living. Apparently he is not prepared to pay any price at all in order to get complete independence for this nation. I think it should go on the record that the hon. Baronet has sought on every occasion to prevent this Government carrying out a policy which will make this country solvent.

Sir J. Mellor: That is exactly where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the more freedom we have the more prosperous we shall become.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Baronet is always ready to build cinemas before houses, and apparently that is his mentality in relation to the task of dealing with the economic situation in which we are placed. The effectiveness of these orders has meant that we have been able to get a move on with the electricity generating plants; we have been able to increase the manpower in the mining industry; and we were able to supply the agrciultural labour which was required to bring in the harvest. All these things have been done, and we are satisfied that without those powers we should be unable to maintain the standard of life that we have achieved in this country. Part of our success in restoring our economic equilibrium has been due to the functioning of these powers.
The hon. Baronet raised a number of points. He raised, first of all, the question of the Eagle Star Company prosecution. He also referred to the Declaration of Human Rights, the N.C.B. and the closed shop, the cost of the Domestic Workers Institute, and then he talked about short time. I have had no notice about a number of those points; however, I am not complaining. Is it suggested that we should not have prosecuted the Eagle Star Company? Is it suggested that that big financial Corporation should go free and that the individual worker should be prosecuted? Of what does he really complain? Here is a company that defied the law of the country; the prosecution was undertaken after the company had been informed on at least three occasions that it was defying the law, and only because it was defiant about this matter the prosecution was undertaken. The prosecution was undertaken as a result of a decision at the Ministry. In every case of this sort a prosecution is undertaken with the knowledge of either the Minister or myself. No civil servant out in the regions has the right to decide whether a prosecution will be taken. Whatever may have been said at the trial to which the hon. Baronet referred, that is the fact. Prosecutions are decided on in London, and nowhere else.
He also asked why we did not proceed against the typist. I am satisfied, from a study of the papers, that this girl, who did not know her way about too well in


this country, was as much a victim of circumstances as anyone else. I am not quite satisfied that the girl was uninfluenced in the action she took, but it would be unfair to penalise her when the guilty party was this rich British company, which knew what it was doing and did it in defiance—

Sir J. Mellor: And where she is still employed.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Would the hon. Gentleman have her removed from that place. The girl was not the culprit. The culprit was the Eagle Star Company. Having punished them, I took the view, and the Minister did so too, that we should be vindictive if we removed the girl from there after a successful prosecution. I think perhaps the hon. Baronet would have taken that view if he had had to deal with the matter.
I want to deal now with the closed shop. Apparently he objects to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers getting together to decide how to collect union dues. There is nothing illegal about it. It has been done for a long time in many industries. The worker signs a form of contract whereby deductions are permitted from his wages. If the N.C.B. does not get the authority to deduct the contributions they cannot do so. What will arise afterwards is hypothetical, but so far our position is this: we shall endeavour to get every man we possibly can in the mining industry, in order to give us the best possible result.
With regard to the Declaration of Human Rights, obviously the hon. Baronet has not studied it. If he will look at it, he will see that it is hedged around. It is the policy of the Government to establish, as soon as we can afford it as a nation, complete freedom for employers and workers, but we cannot do that while we depend for our standard of living on aid from another nation. We must stand on our own feet before we start exercising the full liberty that we all want to see. We ought not to do it at the expense of America.
One other point with regard to domestic workers, is he suggesting that we would direct a trained domestic worker into some other industry, that the Ministry would go to all that trouble of training a domestic worker, as a result of the policy laid down by the Coalition Government, which he supported, and then—

Sir J. Mellor: The Ministry is stopping large numbers of people who wish to go into domestic service from doing so because of the prolongation of this order.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no justification for that statement. I challenge the hon. Member to produce a single case proving that statement. He makes statements to the House which have no relation to fact, which are not doing the country any good, and which are doing his own reputation a great deal of harm.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that women between 18 and 40 are entitled to go into domestic service without interference from the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I ask the hon. Member to produce a single case where the Ministry has used its powers to prevent any woman within the controlled ages from going into domestic service. The fears that exist in his mind have no existence in reality. I wish he would drop this political game, and help us to pull this country out of its difficulties.

Sir J. Mellor: Would not the right thing be for the right hon. Gentleman to revoke his orders?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We shall do that as soon as we have got this country on its feet. Then we shall be entitled to enjoy liberties. We cannot as a nation enjoy liberties that other nations have to pay for.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes past Two o'Clock.